Chuck Schumer’s decision to give Chuck Hagel a kosher seal of approval last week seemed to take a lot of the steam out of the growing movement to stop his confirmation as secretary of defense. But, as Alana noted last week, there is still plenty of opposition to President Obama’s choice to head the Pentagon, and yesterday one of the more prominent liberal voices in the media voiced his doubts about the former senator. Former New York Times editor Bill Keller is as reliable a font of liberal conventional wisdom as can be found, but to his credit, he rejects as absurd the argument that Hagel’s military service during Vietnam qualifies him to lead the defense apparatus.
Keller takes aim, as I did recently, at the idea that military valor is a qualification for high office. Even more interesting, while Keller approves of Hagel’s non-mainstream views about engaging Iran and other Islamist threats, he also directly acknowledges that the Nebraskan seems to have a classic case of Vietnam syndrome as well as being unlikely to be able to manage generals. If liberals like Keller are willing to air this kind of a critique of Hagel, then Republicans who are thinking about going to the mat in an attempt to stop his confirmation ought to be encouraged.
To his discredit, Keller dismisses the very serious critiques about Hagel’s bragging about standing up to the “Jewish lobby” and thinks his desire to talk with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah is “great.” Given that he supports these positions that are, at least on the surface, at variance with President Obama’s own views, it is curious that he chooses not to mention the fact that Hagel has completely disavowed these positions in a desperate effort to get the approval of senators like Schumer.
But Keller zeroes in on the idea that his courageous service in Vietnam tells us anything about Hagel’s abilities to carry out the job the president wishes him to fill. He notes that John Kerry’s attempt to run for president in 2004 with a “reporting for duty” theme was an embarrassing flop. He also rightly puts down attempts to disqualify liberals who didn’t serve as unworthy of giving orders to the military or to deride right-wingers who didn’t serve as “chicken hawks:”
Eliot Cohen, a neocon military historian with whom I do not often agree, wrote the following about the combat credential: “According to this view, to fill a senior policy position during a war one would of course prefer a West Point graduate who had led a regiment in combat, as opposed to a corporate lawyer turned politician with a few weeks’ experience in a militia unit that did not fight. The former profile fits Jefferson Davis, and the latter Abraham Lincoln.”
Keller also quotes an illuminating account of Hagel’s foolish criticism of our military in Iraq:
In “Endgame,” their history of the war in Iraq, Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor recount a trip then-Senator Obama and Senator Hagel took to Iraq in 2008. Obama deftly probes General Petraeus on the nuances of winding down the conflict. But Hagel comes across as prickly and inflexible. At one point, he seems to suggest that the general should be trimming his troop requests to fit the domestic political realities in Washington, and Petraeus takes offense. “I will do what you want me to do,” Petraeus retorts. “But I’m going to give my best military advice. You seem to want me to tailor my advice to a policy.”
Hagel shows, as Keller writes, clear signs of “Vietnam syndrome” whereby veterans or others scarred by that failure “recoil from conflict” even when it is both justified and necessary to preserve America’s security. Though Keller stops short of opposing the nomination, combined with his history of taking positions aimed at undermining the alliance with Israel and appeasing our Islamist foes, his column gives Democrats and Republicans one more reason to reject Hagel’s nomination.
am still wondering the significance of Chuck Schumer and the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir's prominence at the inauguration today. n nFortunately, USA channel started an NCIS marathon at 6:00 am, EDT, with episode 1, 2003 "Yankee White". Funny how NCIS always showed the Bushes until 2008, but not once have the Obamas made even a cameo on a TV screen since then.
me too n nI am watching NCIS n nlolol n nthe producer of NCIS, Donald P. Bellisario, was in the MArines…….he is stepfather to Sean Murray who plays McGee in the series. n n
charleston: too funny. Too bad you missed my NCIS duel with clare in the Bibi, part 1 thread here. She is obsessed with the antisemitism in NCIS because of her interpretation of how Mossad is portrayed, and is convinced that Mark Harmon has a hidden liberal agenda in the show. At her blog, she is planning to complain to the ADL. n nBellisario being a Marine explains a lot. He will have a more enduring legacy than Obama or Hagel. n n n n n n n
Still wondering why liberals haven't zeroed in on Hagel's bait-and-switch on abortion and gay rights. Had a 100% rating during 12 yrs as senator from Nebraska on his "pro-life" voting record; even said he was against abortion in cases of rape! His weak apology for slamming gay man nominated for diplomatic post also suspect. nFunny (not really) that when Romney went from weak pro-choice governor of MA to pro-life candidate for PRez, he ws slammed by MSM. nWhere are they on HAgel for doing reverse?
Why flog this dead horse? n nThe only reason I can think of is to try to narrow the range of acceptable discourse about US strategy, especially in the Middle East. n nNo such luck, I think.
this discussion boring you? n nlol
The derangement and mouth-foaming of the neoconnery is faintly amusing. Of course, Tobin can't outdo Jennifer Rubin.
Rubin is fearless in being a piece of shift and only Caroline Glick is more stupid while being more loathsome and bigoted and only Pamela Geller, a deranged racist pig, is lower than Glick n nTobin is still tethered to a pretense of reason and dignity.
ewwwwww
OMG, I bothered to respond to this loathsome individual so incapable of civil discourse?! No more feeding the troll.
I couldn't tell whether you meant Grumpy or Dub.
I was reacting to ldubinsky, whose contributions are so worthless and who is so personally repugnant. But I see Grumpy_Old_Man in the same unfavorable light that I see all antisemites.
Yeah, right, Dub — Glick is stupid and that new lawyer in town, Wilson, is clearly a puddin'head. n nYou or me calling Glick stupid is like my calling Michael Jordan clumsy and weak.
It would be best if you did not feed the troll. The "merits" of his comments are self-evident, so there is no reason to call attention to them or otherwise encourage him. And the people he rails against don't need to be defended against him by us. (And yes, I did go first with a reaction to his offensiveness, but it was to regret that I had ever engaged with such a loathsome person, one who is clearly incapable of civil discourse and can do no more than hurl ugly invective.)
Good point. I seem to notice though that a number of trolls here exhibit what I have come to think of as Puddin'head Wilson syndrome — conclusively assuming the self-evident stupidity of their intellectual betters because of their own lack of insight. n nHas this term been employed by others to describe that syndrome?
aha, perhaps she's not stupid and the endless parade of logical flaws in her screeds are deliberate.
Hey, dolt, yer really good at Ad Hominems. What's the matter, mommy put the too tight 'Roos on you today?
nope, i'm just really good at it and enjoy applying it to people who routinely employ it