Foreign Policy Magazine
ARGUMENT
Obama’s new defense secretary will first and foremost need to get the Asia pivot right.
BY JAMES HOLMES | JANUARY 7, 2013
Chuck Hagel may be a former grunt, but his most important task as America’s next secretary of defense — should his nomination pass the Senate — could be a trying job for a landlubber: executing the military component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. It’s a mission that will require an appreciation for the finer points of maritime strategy, a deft diplomatic touch, and an expansive worldview.
But first, Hagel must understand what the pivot is, while viewing it against the grand sweep of U.S. diplomatic history. A historically and geostrategically minded secretary will stand a good chance of configuring the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard prudently — and of arranging sea-service forces on the map to accomplish America’s goals.
What is a foreign-policy pivot? Metaphors have their uses, but they can distort meaning if deployed cavalierly. A pivot is a central shaft, axle, or pin around which machinery rotates. The engineering metaphor encourages practitioners and commentators to interpret the administration’s initiative in physical, geospatial terms. In these literal terms, Washington, D.C. is presumably the axle around which U.S. foreign policy revolves. Hence many observers’ lament that the United States is turning its back on perennial theaters like the Atlantic community to oversee events in East and South Asia. There’s a degree of truth to this, but applying the pivot metaphor implies an about-face. Seldom are things that pat.
I define a pivot as a foreign-policy enterprise that combines elements of geography, strategy, and diplomacy to mount a sustained presence in some distant and potentially contested overseas theater. In military terms, pivoting means building up preponderant armed might in East and South Asia in concert with friends and allies to accomplish strategic and political goals. Pivoting is a matter of strategic mass, strategic maneuver, and alliance relations. It also means setting priorities. American leaders must be prepared to relegate secondary theaters to secondary status, lest they scatter finite resources hither and yon. Dispersal thins out military power at any spot on the map, perhaps leaving U.S. commanders at a local disadvantage against weaker foes. Armed forces that try to do everything, everywhere, at the same time end up doing little anywhere.
While the term “pivot” may be novel, its substance is anything but. Indeed, U.S. diplomatic history can be interpreted as a series of pivots. Writing in the 1940s, Yale professor Nicholas Spykman — arguably the foremost geopolitical thinker of his day — recalled that the New World had been an object of struggle for the Old World since Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue. In those early centuries, influence radiated across the Atlantic and Pacific toward American shores. Eurasian empires fought for supremacy and prosperity in the Americas. They sustained their efforts largely through overseas commerce, their newfound territorial holdings, and great merchant and naval fleets — the sinews of sea power according to U.S. Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, a fin-de-siècle pundit who knew a thing or two about the subject.
The United States first pivoted from North America to the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, turning its eyes from the continental interior to the maritime near abroad. Let’s call this turnabout Pivot 1.0. This was the age of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), when Washington appointed itself the protector of American republics’ independence of European imperial rule. In principle, the republic forbade Europeans to expand their holdings anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. In practice, U.S. leaders confined their energies to the Caribbean basin. They were thinking geostrategically, and they set priorities. Once dug, a canal across the Isthmus of Panama would shorten sea voyages between Atlantic and Pacific by thousands of miles, sparing mariners the journey around Tierra del Fuego — the odyssey the Pacific-based battleship USS Oregon underwent to get into the fight off Cuba in 1898.
America executed its first seaward pivot on the cheap. Erstwhile foe Great Britain ruled the waves, and it had reasons of its own for wanting to keep rival empires out of the Americas. Owing to this confluence of interests, Britain’s Royal Navy was a silent partner in the Monroe Doctrine. British, not American seafarers enforced the hands-off policy for most of the 19th century. Washington achieved its geopolitical aims while freeriding on the preeminent fleet of the day. Why invest in an expensive U.S. Navy when powerful outsiders would do the navy’s work for it? Except for a brief buildup for Civil War blockade duty, the U.S. Navy remained a backwater until the 1880s. Only then did the United States lay the keels for its first armored, steam-driven battle fleet — amassing the wherewithal to put steel behind its pivot to the sea. No longer would Washington entrust the doctrine to external guardians whose goodwill could prove fleeting.
In Spykman’s words, U.S. leaders fixed their strategic gaze on “America’s Mediterranean” to the south. They set ambitious goals, such as preserving Latin American republics’ independence while keeping stronger imperial powers at bay. And expediency determined the implements they used to attain those goals. Having an external benefactor like the Royal Navy appeared providential during the founding decades, when the United States was subduing a continent and pursuing internal improvements. By the 1880s, however, the Industrial Revolution had delivered such material abundance that Washington could take charge of North America’s environs. The United States started accumulating strategic mass, manifest in a strong navy. Victory over Spain in 1898 furnished strategic mobility in the form of an island base network to support naval operations in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.
Policy energy, strategic mass, strategic maneuver — these were the struts supporting America’s first foreign-policy pivot. But if Pivot 1.0 swiveled U.S. attention to the Caribbean, it also ushered in Pivot 1.5. Adm. George Dewey’s Asiatic Squadron crushed the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay during the Spanish-American War, handing the United States an offshore outpost in the Far East. Washington scooped up islands such as Hawaii and Guam — islands suitable for naval stations — in the aftermath of war. America had established a bridgehead off the China coast, complete with island stepping-stones to reach it. It just needed a Central American canal to expedite access from the North American east coast to the Pacific Ocean, and thence to the riches of Asia.
America’s Pacific strategy remained in limbo until the Panama Canal opened in late 1914, completing the arc of Pivot 2.0. In an arresting turn of a phrase, Spykman vouchsafed that the transoceanic waterway in effect lifted the United States and turned it 90 degrees southward on its axis — rotating the republic’s strategic gaze wholesale toward the isthmus and the broad Pacific. In reality the canal split U.S. foreign policy. The republic’s leaders surveyed events not just along the traditional eastward vector toward Western Europe, but also along a new westward vector pointing toward Asia.
With the opening of the canal, the strategic-maneuver component of the Pacific pivot thus fell into place alongside strategic mass. As the United States continued its ascent to great power, consequently, the longstanding pattern — in which the Old World was the arbiter of events in the New — reversed itself. Having won grudging European acquiescence in the Monroe Doctrine, the United States cast eyes on the western and eastern rimlands of Eurasia. Statesmen like Theodore Roosevelt had long considered it dangerous to allow a single great power or hostile coalition to wrest away control of Western Europe, East Asia, or both — gaining sufficient military resources and a geographic platform from which to menace the Americas. Hardscrabble logic like TR’s summoned the United States to Eurasia for two world wars and a Cold War.
The logic of Pivot 2.0 persisted through the Cold War, although the nature of East-West strategic competition drew U.S. strategists’ attention further into the Eurasian heartland occupied by the Soviet Union than during the days when Imperial Germany and the Axis were on the march. Samuel P. Huntington, the great political scientist, contended that U.S. maritime strategy entered a “transoceanic” phase following World War II, fixing American attentions on events deep within Eurasia while empowering U.S. forces to act from forward bases scattered around the rimlands. Call Huntington’s transoceanic strategy Pivot 2.5 if you like. But it was another variation on the same theme.
The difference between the Cold War and the world wars, then, was in emphasis more than substance. The Cold War threw the contest between land and sea power into stark relief. Moscow operated mainly within the bounds of Eurasia, projecting power outward from the heartland along railways, roads, and other land lines of communication. Seagoing Western forces ranged around the circumference, transmitting power inward from the sea. But despite the change of adversary, from the rimland alliances of the world wars to a central Eurasian power, Washington’s determination to prevent a hegemon from ruling the eastern and western rimlands endured.
As in Pivots 1.0 and 1.5, the elements of Pivot 2.0 were policy focus, strategic mass, and maneuver. But two additional elements injected themselves this time. Alliance politics granted the U.S. military access to the Eurasian rimlands, helping forces overcome the tyranny of distance. At the same time, Eurasian opponents boasted growing capacity to dispute entry into their backyards. These elements persist to this day. No pivot can succeed without access to the theater.
Viewed against the backdrop of history, the Obama administration’s maneuver qualifies as Pivot 3.0. How does it differ from its predecessors? First, in effect the administration has pivoted from Western Europe to the greater Indian Ocean, shifting America’s gaze from the western to the southern rimland for the first time. That imparts a north-south character to U.S. policy toward Eurasia, modifying its historically east-west, horizontal alignment. The vertical dimension will become even more pronounced should climate change open the Arctic Ocean — and thus the polar rimland of Eurasia — to shipping more often and more reliably in the coming decades.
But it overstates matters to fret, as worried Europe-first commentators often do, that the pivot presages American neglect of the Atlantic theater. Unless the United States rearranges its basing structure in the critical theaters — say, by basing heavy U.S. Navy forces in western Australia, thereby shifting the navy’s center of gravity to the region — it will keep dispatching expeditionary forces from east-coast seaports like Norfolk and Groton to the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. They’re the closest North American naval stations to the western reaches of the greater Indian Ocean.
For the foreseeable future, then, Washington will continue to depend on the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Red Sea as a thoroughfare for U.S. naval forces. The pivot has deflected the administration’s policy attention to the south by a few compass points, from Europe to South Asia, while Washington has come to regard Europe less as an object of U.S. foreign policy in its own right than as an enabler for U.S. policy in Asia. But Europe has been a platform for U.S. warmaking in the Middle East and Indian Ocean region for more than two decades now. Does looking past Europe mark that radical a break with history, and is the shift that worrisome so long as the Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe face no real threat? I can’t see why.
Second, the South Asian rimland is inaccessible relative to the eastern and western rimlands, theaters reachable from North America by way of direct if long sea and air routes. Look at the map. U.S. forces bound for the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic must transit narrow seas like the Strait of Gibraltar, Suez Canal, and Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Units coming from the Pacific must traverse the Malacca, Lombok, or Sunda straits. If denied passage through these chokepoints, mariners must undertake arduous voyages around the Cape of Good Hope, at Africa’s southern tip, or around the southern rim of the South China Sea, scudding between Indonesia and Australia. In extreme circumstances, U.S. Pacific Fleet units might find themselves forced to detour around the southern Australian coast. Strategists must not blithely discount hard geographic realities — realities compounded by the lethal, long-range, precision weaponry increasingly found in hostile hands.
Third, the United States shouldered an increasing share of the resource burden in its early pivots. It could afford to. But an increasingly cash-strapped Washington would now like to offload some of the burden onto friends and allies. Indeed, the 2007 U.S. Maritime Strategy, which foreshadowed Pivot 3.0, instructs U.S. officials and commanders to seek out alliances, coalitions, and partnerships to help share the load. That makes Pivot 3.0 a stiffer diplomatic challenge than its forebears. It’s one thing for allies to grant access to their soil or conduct combined exercises or operations with U.S. forces. The American taxpayer foots most of the bill for such enterprises; what’s not to like? It’s quite another for allies to agree to help fund a made-in-Washington strategy out of their own taxpayers’ pockets. Deft diplomacy will be a must as the strategic pirouette proceeds.
Here’s hoping America’s next secretary of defense, whether it’s Hagel or somebody else, will see U.S. diplomatic history for what it is — a handy yardstick for today’s endeavors.
Junko Kimura/Getty Images
SUBJECTS: CHINA, POLITICS, MILITARY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, SECURITY, HISTORY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, NORTH AMERICA, EAST ASIAJames Holmes is professor of strategy at the Naval War College. The views voiced here are his alone.
Powered by
When we have JeanPierreKatz, among us, who needs Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina, (who also sits on the Armed Services Committee) charging our Nebraska naughty-boy, Chuck Hagel, among other things, “out of the ‘Mainstream, whatever that means, as far as Foreign Policy-views. Graham and John McCain? More like Don Quixote and his buddy, Sancho Panza, going after dilapidated windmills.
Jewish Lobby is just about ready to throw their best media campaign, if not already, into the Congressional fisticuffs. Pro Israel groups, such as “Emergency Committee for Israel” calling Chuck Hagel, “not a responsible choice.”
Source: The Economist, January 7, 2013 by MJS, London
Bring it on. Chuck and I, ain’t gonna go away, that easy.
…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com
Conversation on FP.com
Where did you get Indian Ocean from Pacific Pivot? Perhaps the reason the US currently concentrating on the SW Pacific is because it : 1. Has the Pacific Allies most in need of shoring up
2. Is more politically correct/less embroiled with Beijing over some shoals which may more may not contain Hydro-carbons and a Qing Emperor may or may not have took a deuce on said islands in 1842.
3. The opportunity for new engagement exists there, read Burma and Vietnam
The Senate should say no to this terrible choice. Hagel has no natural constituency, except perhaps for those who want a foreign and defense policy that is tougher on Israel and softer on Iran. Israel would be clear that Obama views the Jewish state with hostility. Iran would be clear that it has nothing serious to fear from the Obama administration. Nothing else can explain this odd nomination. Team Obama tried to couch it as a bipartisan act, inasmuch as Hagel was a Republican Senator. But key Republican Senators have made it clear that they don’t want Hagel at the Pentagon. Key Democrats have also failed to express enthusiasm over that prospect. If there’s a bipartisan consensus around Hagel, it’s that Obama should nominate someone else. If the President would like to abandon his election promises about stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program he should just say so. Trying to change US Defense and Foreign Policy by just appointing Hagel will be understood that way in the Senate and will not be accepted.Ten out of twenty-five members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrats, Republicans and Independents,have already expressed their concerns about him. To me he is the stereotypical Archie Bunker type bigot. His policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn’t support equal benefits for gay military families. there are many ways a Secretary of Defense could help gay military families no matter how DOMA is decided and Hagel has not come out in favor of any of these. Reports to the contrary, LGBT equality is not yet a done deal in the military. There is still the matter of partner benefits. There still remain a handful of regulations that could be revised independent of the Defense of Marriage act that could bring some equity of compensation and benefits to gay and lesbian service members. but remain denied due only to Department of Defense foot-dragging: Included in the discretionary benefits currently denied are spousal identication cards, and shopping at the PX, the former cited in the Pentagon’s own Working Group study as not requiring DOMA repeal to deliver. His remarks about the Jewish lobby having too much influence would cleary be seen as bigoted if you substitute any other minority group’s lobby. Try NAACP or La Raza and see how long you would be considered. He is anti-African American (with a 11/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception)By contrast, he has a 100% rating from the NRA. andHagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon. “Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers. “Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.” Others familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover. “Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.” Multiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel. “As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.” “I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source Sources expressed concern about such behavior should Hagel be nominated for the defense post. With competing military and civilian interests vying for supremacy, the department requires a skilled manager, sources said. “The Pentagon requires strong civilian control,” a senior aide to a former Secretary of Defense told the Free Beacon. “It’s already swung back in favor of the military over the past five years. A new secretary of defense should push it back in its rightful place, but it’s doubtful Hagel would be that guy.” “It’s not clear that [Hagel] has the standing, the managerial prowess, or the willingness to gore some oxen,” said the source. One senior Bush administration official warned that Hagel is ill informed about many critical foreign policy matters. “He’s not someone who’s shown a lot of expertise on these issues,” said the source, referencing a recent Washington Post editorial excoriating Hagel’s record. “That [op-ed] was extraordinary.” “Only in Washington,” the official added, “can someone like [Hagel] be seen as a heavy weight. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” Hagel’s reluctance to chastise Iran also remains a central concern. As chief of the Pentagon it is expected he would avoid planning for a military intervention should Tehran refuse to end its clandestine nuclear enrichment program. “The military brass is already reluctant to offer up any military options on Iran even though it’s their job to have something on the books and to leave the options of the commander in chief open,” said the aide. “Hagel will only reinforce these worrisome tendencies.” “Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said. There is no reason to believe his appointment would change Israeli policies. But there is a very strong likelihood that it would be a fatal blow to the chances of a negotiated settlement with Iran. Iran would have to conclude that it doesn’t have to fear finishing it’s nuclear weapons program or even continuing towards ICBM’s pointing at America. Democratic senators, several of whom have already voiced concern, also should vote no on someone who’s views on many major issues are opposite of the President’s and who’s language is bigoted, and instead insist he appoint a better person like Michelle Flournoy. Flournoy closely mirrors the previous stated policies of the President, the Democratic Party, and the American people.
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
GOP, don’t fight the Hagel nomination
President Barack Obama is nominating Chuck Hagel, a former U.S. senator from Nebraska, to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Hagel served in the military during the Vietnam War, leading him later to tell a biographer, “I will do all I can to prevent war.” After coming home from Vietnam, Hagel worked briefly as a newscaster, then had a career in business, before entering public service as a Republican senator for 12 years. Here’s a look at his military and government career:- President Barack Obama is nominating Chuck Hagel for defense secretary
- Julian Zelizer: Republicans should avoid challenging Hagel’s confirmation
- By opposing Hagel, GOP would strengthen Obama’s edge on national security
- Zelizer: GOP would look foolish challenging one of its own and opposing bipartisanship
Editor’s note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of “Jimmy Carter” and of “Governing America.”
(CNN) — Some Republicans are itching for a fight on President Barack Obama’s nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.
Sen. Lindsey Graham warned that Hagel would be the most “antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel.” Neoconservative guru William Kristol is already cranking up the attack machine, focusing on Hagel’s statements about Israel and Iran. Although some Democrats are confused about the Hagel appointment, with some upset about remarks he made several years ago about homosexuality, if there is to be a fight it will probably come from the right.
Republicans would do well to avoid this path. In all likelihood, such a nomination fight would only hurt the Republicans, who are already reeling politically from the election and the battle over the fiscal cliff.
Why is a fight over Hagel a bad idea for Republicans? The most obvious is that they would be attacking a member of their own party. Even though Hagel has been a maverick and someone who was critical of his party, pushing in recent years for a centrist approach to foreign policy, he is a genuine Republican, as his voting record reveals.
A mobilized GOP opposition fighting against the inclusion of one of its own in a Democratic administration would only fuel frustration with the rightward drift of the party. After a move that demonstrates Obama’s true interest in bipartisanship, this would bolster the critics who say the GOP is to blame for gridlock in Washington.
Hagel is also a staunch advocate for veterans and the military. Republicans have always tried to make the claim that Democrats are weak on defense and that they are the party of national security.
Mack: Hagel ‘will get nomination in end’
Graham: Hagel a controversial choice 
Hagel likely defense secretary pickAlthough Hagel has been a skeptical hawk, he is a Republican hawk nonetheless. One does not have to work too hard to imagine what the optics would be like if Republicans go after Hagel, who would be the first Vietnam veteran to hold the position.
It would give Obama the opportunity to position himself as the person really standing behind a robust national security state. Since taking office, Obama has repeatedly tripped up Republicans on this issue, outflanking them to the right on the war on terrorism. This would simply continue that trend.
The final reason that taking on Hagel is extraordinarily risky for the GOP is that Hagel’s most famous maverick move was coming out as a critic of President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq despite the fact that he had supported the original resolution to use force if necessary.
Given how unpopular that war remains, a symbol for many Americans of the mistakes that Republicans made on foreign policy when in power, the last thing that Republicans probably want is a renewed debate on Iraq.
By bringing that war to an end, Obama has provided one of the greatest services to the GOP that it could have hoped for, allowing it to move on to other national security issues.
Even some of Hagel’s potential liabilities might turn out to be much less significant than expected. After all, despite his comments about Israel, the truth is that Hagel voted to provide Israel with aid and he has voted for sanctions with Iran. The record is much murkier than some of the statements on the Sunday morning talk shows would suggest.
Republicans have often shot from the hip in their attacks on the Obama administration. It is easy to imagine the president and his advisers anticipating attacks on Hagel that will only work to their favor.
Senate Republicans might want to think twice about this vote on a former colleague and focus their attention on more constructive debates.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.
-
Nodack • 6 hours ago Go ahead and fight the nomination GOP. Everyone expects it. We all know at this point that it doesn’t matter who Obama nominates because they are going to appose anything he does no matter what. Them fighting a Democrat President nominating a Republican is just more proof that they are only interested in obstructing.
- Show 1 new reply
- 194 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Republicans_Demise Nodack • 5 hours ago Obama wants to cut unnecessary funding from our BLOATED military.
It seems Hagel is a straight-shooter who was one of this first to turn on the Repubs during the Iraq war. He didn’t play ball, and the Neocons hated him ever since.
So really, there is only one good reason for the Republicans to blast Hagel – they know he may just tell the truth, and really request the necessary cuts.
With a Repub asking for the cuts, they can’t claim the plan is partisan.Once again, if Obama plays 3D Chess, Republicans play Angry Birds.
- 145 3
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Adikia Republicans_Demise • 4 hours ago It gets more difficult every day to understand how the republicans are able to maintain their Boehner.
- 50 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
RobertMosesSupposesErroneously Adikia • 4 hours ago Warning, if you experience a Boehner lasting more than one term, please contact your electorate immediately.
- 60
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
artring RobertMosesSupposesErroneously • 2 hours ago Permission to steal that, sir?
- 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
RobertMosesSupposesErroneously artring • 2 hours ago Go for it – I’m sure I’m not the first to make the joke!
- 2
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
James Carothers RobertMosesSupposesErroneously • 2 hours ago Another OMG that’s good.
- 4
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Don Curtis Adikia • 4 hours ago OK – that’s a good one!
- 12
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
James Carothers Adikia • 2 hours ago OMG, that’s a good one.
- 3
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Jack schiese Adikia • 3 hours ago Boehner jokes for the win. lol I like those and Governor Christie jokes. Like Christ Christie drops bomb on GOP leaders…That’s nothing compared to the bomb he dropped in the toilet.
- 3 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Itsmellslikefish Jack schiese • 2 hours ago Jack…go back in your hole.
- 1 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Omar Tentmaker Adikia • 3 hours ago Maybe all your lip service helps….LOL
- 2 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
steve435 Republicans_Demise • 3 hours ago I hadn’t thought of that (may tell the truth) but it makes a ton of sense. The GOP sacred cow is defense spending……I think you’re correct.
- 11
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Leland Williams Jr. Republicans_Demise • 5 hours ago True…cut the military and hand it out so people won’t have to work.
- 8 21
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Greg Dargiewicz Leland Williams Jr. • 3 hours ago That’s just such a nonsensical response. I don’t know anyone who thinks that, except republicans who find strawman arguments easy to make, and thought-out responses beyond their grasp.
- 32
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
steve435 Leland Williams Jr. • 3 hours ago I think comments like this are why I just can’t “get” the GOP. I just can’t connect their dots.
- 15
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Thomas Paine Leland Williams Jr. • 2 hours ago No, look at military spending Along with all other spending to get budget control. No sacred cows
- 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Don Curtis Republicans_Demise • 4 hours ago Is that why Gitmo is still open?
- 2 4
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Jim Logan Don Curtis • 2 hours ago gitmo is still open because the republicans blocked it from being closed.
- 10 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Ron Bockman Jim Logan • 19 minutes ago not true, he couldn’t find a suitable institution to house the moslem terrorists. don’t you feel stupid lying?
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
-
Steven Bannister Republicans_Demise • 3 hours ago Listen to Zelizer – “By bringing that war to an end, Obama has provided one of the greatest services to the GOP that it could have hoped for”
Ha, ha, what a joke! OBAMA brought the war to an end? Ya right! The timetable for withdrawal had already been drawn up by the Bush Administration, Obama simply followed it.
Hey, while we’re at it, why not give Obama credit for ending Vietnam and WWII as well?
- 1 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Bill Pranty Steven Bannister • an hour ago As we have seen for years, Rethugs rarely if ever folow through with campaign promises. Dubya’s plan to end the war would UNDOUBTEDLY have been overturned by President McCain. Regardless of your ignorance, Obama gets credit for ending the Iraq War because he trulyENDED it.
- 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
LarryAt27N Steven Bannister • 2 hours ago Cheers to Obama for ending WW2!!
- 3
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
mycroft16 Steven Bannister • 2 hours ago To his credit, he upheld the agreement and didn’t seek to change it as he could have. So while it may not have been him that set it all up, he did follow through on it and stick to it. Credit where it is due on both sides of that. President Bush for setting it up, President Obama for keeping to it.
- 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
trashreader Steven Bannister • 15 minutes ago At least Obama actually brought the war to an end. Bush claimed “Mission Accomplished” just two months after the war started.
Unfortunately, 90% of the American casualties happened after that ridiculous proclamation.
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Ron Bockman Republicans_Demise • 15 minutes ago hagel is a fake, his purple heart is for a burn on his shoulder that he got falling asleep drunk against a radiator, he’s homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and racist.
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
John Graves Nodack • 4 hours ago I’m trying very hard to understand the real reason for all the vitriol against a decorated, patriotic American nominated to lead the DOD. The party of freedom fries wants to crucify an American hero for pledging alliance to America rather than to Israel? “I’m not an Israeli senator, I’m a United States senator.” What is so abhorrent about that? The party that wants to secede because they lost an election have no right to preach patriotism to anybody.
- 69 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
RobertMosesSupposesErroneously John Graves • 4 hours ago You know when you deny a toddler some candy they want…and they act cranky and petulant for the rest of the day? Same thing.
- 32
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Greg Dargiewicz John Graves • 3 hours ago There is nothing more to this than that Obama nominated him. If he was being nominated by a Republican, we’d hear nothing from them – and they know it.
There has been almost no substance to any Republican arguments over the past four years – if Obama is for it, they’re against it. If they were for it and now Obama is for it, they’re against it. That’s why their “logic” is so painful to listen to…there’s no consistency to it, to say nothing of the nearly total lack of facts or reality to back up what they say. The few actual “factoids” they repeat ad nauseum are completely lacking in context, as though eight years of Republican incompetence (on top of Reagan and GHW’s 12 years) and the past four years of Republican lies and obstructionism have nothing to do with what’s happened to our economy. It’s all distortion and spin from the Republicans. Republican politicians know this – they just don’t care. Republican supporters believe the politicians, but no one else does, Republican or not, because it’s more than just a little obvious to everyone except them. - 23
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
michael64c Greg Dargiewicz • 3 hours ago If a Republican nominated him, all of his anti-gay statements would be front and center, but because he was nominated by Pres. Obama, the progressives are ignoring them. I mean after all, the gays throw good parties, but there is no need to take them seriously Maybe, Mr. Hagel has evolved on this issue like the president, who finally evolved after Biden opnened his mouth. Thank you, all of our “allies” for taking the anti- gay remarks and considering them not important. (he did apologize for being insensitive, not being wrong).Thank you for considering the anti gay remarks as being less important than if he had made anti woman or anti racial minoritiy remarks. Thank you for proving that we are valuable as long as we know our place.
- 3 5
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Republicans_Demise michael64c • 3 hours ago Maybe bc Repubs have a history of showing really poor judgement and character analysis.
Meaning, if Repubs say someone is trustworthy, they are probably a really sleazy slimeball.
- 6
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
michael64c Republicans_Demise • 2 hours ago Interesting theory….let’s look…Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards…..do you really think that the Repubs have a stranglehold on dubious politicians? The point is not about Republicans and their views. It is about how the left has abandoned the gays and lesbians because the niminee happens to annoy some on the right. Would you accept an apology from a repub nominee who made derogatory comments about women, or african americans or latinos? Why are the gays so easily dismissed? Why are our concerns so easily passed over? This has nothing to do with how republicans ( except for Mr. Hagel) see us, it has to do with how the left view us.
- 3 3
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Ron Bockman Republicans_Demise • 24 minutes ago are you referring to Abraham Lincoln
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Jim Logan michael64c • an hour ago Are you saying that the Republicans, of all people, are really opposing Hagel because of an anti-gay remark he made years ago?
Have you heard of their proposed Constitutional amendment or any of their other positions on gays? They practically ran their just lost campaign on an ant-gay agenda. - 5
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
-
LiberalReb John Graves • 2 hours ago The GOP is the party of HATRED, pure and simple. ‘nuf said.
- 4
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Carl LiberalReb • an hour ago Liberals are just plain stupid, pure and simple. ‘nuf said.
- 1 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
LiberalReb Carl • an hour ago Did you ever have an original thought in your whole entire life?
- 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
LiberalReb Carl • an hour ago how original
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
-
Carl John Graves • an hour ago Hagel does not support a hard line on Iran, and does not support Israel.
- 0 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Les Peachey Carl • 39 minutes ago I dont support israeli terrorism either!
- 4
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Ron Bockman John Graves • 22 minutes ago decorated my tuchas, he fell asleep drunk against a radiator and burned his shoulder
- 0
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
PJL500 Nodack • 3 hours ago On the one hand the President gets what he wants and on the other it’s a nasty trap for (an obstructionist) GOP to fall into.
- 5
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
May My God Be With You Nodack • 6 hours ago I want to see how many democrats vote against him
- 15 9
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
prelude066 May My God Be With You • 6 hours ago Below you told me that Democrats were criticizing him. Based on this statement, you just made it up.
- 11
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Barney Fife May My God Be With You • 5 hours ago Walk to mirror
Look in mirror
Count the number of democrats voting against Hagel you see in mirror.
- 5
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Moira Lawson May My God Be With You • 5 hours ago There will be some but very few.
- 3
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
Leland Williams Jr. May My God Be With You • 5 hours ago Left is usually antisemitic…just hides it well….Vichy Dems
- 6 10
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Noneyo Beeswax Leland Williams Jr. • 3 hours ago Please tell me you are pretending to sound vacuous and superficial. I appreciate a nuanced political jab (yes they exist and no republicans would not recognize one if it sat on them…), but this one is so over the top I am a little fearful your thinking processes are just that 1-dimensional.
- 10
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
Jay Wilbanks Noneyo Beeswax • 3 hours ago why? bc hes correct?
- 0 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
artring Jay Wilbanks • 2 hours ago Oh, yeah, and the biggest anti-semites are all the Jewish Dems, right? lol
- 1
- •
- Reply
- •
- Share ›
-
-
-
-
-
© 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| 
American politics
Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel and John Brennan
Similar visions
Jan 7th 2013, 18:18 by M.J.S. | LONDON
BY PICKING Chuck Hagel to be his defence secretary and John Brennan to succeed David Petraeus as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Barack Obama has made plain the qualities he is looking for in his most senior security officials: experience, caution and, perhaps above all, personal loyalty. Both men see the world very much as Mr Obama does, which is to say, complicated, messy and all too frequently impervious to the use of American power even when wielded with the best of intentions.
Of the two, Mr Hagel, who currently serves as co-chairman of the president ‘s intelligence advisory board, is by far the more controversial choice. Although a decorated Vietnam soldier (he would be the first to hold the top job at the Pentagon) and a Republican senator for 12 years, his nomination is likely to be more contested by members of his own party than by Democrats (although he has relatively few friends in that camp as well). Lindsey Graham, the hawkish senator from South Carolina who sits on the Armed Services Committee, took to the airwaves over the weekend to describe the Nebraska Republican as well out of the “mainstream” in terms of his foreign-policy views and, if confirmed, “the most antagonistic secretary of defence towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history”. John McCain, a committee colleague of Mr Graham’s and his party’s losing presidential candidate in 2008, says that to “allege that Hagel is somehow a Republican… is a hard one to swallow”. Pro-Israeli groups, such as Emergency Committee for Israel, have also entered the fray, describing Mr Hagel as “not a responsible choice”. Some of the wilder comment has even come close to accusing Mr Hagel of being an anti-Semite.
This is mostly preposterous. During his Senate career, Mr Hagel regularly voted for large chunks of military aid to go to Israel. He has never said anything that could be taken as hostile to the country, other than by those who believe that support for Israel’s government should be unconditional. However, it is understandable why Mr Hagel rouses strong feelings in some quarters.
He has been a consistent critic of America’s long confrontation with Iran, at times expressing scepticism about the value of unilateral American sanctions. He remains an advocate of engagement with Iran and has warned against sliding into war on the basis of “flawed assumptions and flawed judgment”. It is not ridiculous to suggest that if Mr Hagel is at the Pentagon the mullahs in Tehran may worry a little less about Mr Obama’s promise to use force if necessary to prevent them acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mr Hagel has also upset people by arguing that Israel should talk to Hamas. In a 2006 interview he caused a minor storm by clumsily claiming that the “Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” in Congress and that his approach was to “argue against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel”.
Mr Hagel is also disliked by Republican neo-cons for having become a stern critic of the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war (which he initially voted for). Few would argue now with his repeated charges of incompetence in the years after the invasion, but his opposition to the troop surge in 2007 that helped prevent Iraq descending into all-out civil war looks far less prescient.
It is an interesting question whether Mr Hagel’s Vietnam experience makes him sensibly prudent when it comes to sending Americans to fight in far off places or whether he is predisposed against all military interventions, even of a the very limited kind that helped topple Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. On the other hand, Mr Hagel was an enthusiast for the 1999 campaign in Kosovo, even co-sponsoring a bill that would have authorised the use of American ground forces. An early test is likely to be Afghanistan. Mr Hagel talked in 2011 of “looking for the exit”. If Mr Obama decides on a much smaller military commitment than was previously envisaged after 2014, when the last NATO combat troops are due to leave, Mr Hagel is all too likely to give him whatever cover he needs in bucking the advice of the generals.
All of this should make Mr Hagel a shoo-in with most Democrats. But some are hostile to him for an ill-considered remark in 1998 opposing the nomination of the “openly, aggressively gay” James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Others think Mr Obama would have been better off using his political capital to get Susan Rice, a popular Democrat, into Foggy Bottom rather than a Republican into the Pentagon. Nonetheless, despite some huffing and puffing, nearly all the Senate Democrats and probably most Senate Republicans will in the end respect the president’s right to choose his defence secretary.
Mr Brennan’s nomination as CIA director should, by comparison, be a breeze. Although he withdrew when Mr Obama considered him for the job in 2009 because, as a 25-year veteran of the spy agency, he was associated in the minds of some critics with the use of torture that had been sanctioned by the previous administration, many felt this was unfair at the time. In fact, Mr Brennan had opposed both the Iraq war and the post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” techniques, such as water boarding. He was also a strong advocate for the closing of the Guantanamo prison camp. Over the past four years, Mr Brennan has served as the president’s trusted counter-terrorism adviser, closely involved in the mission that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden and an architect of the massively expanded drone campaign that has wiped out a large part of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership and taken the fight to the terrorist group’s affiliates in Yemen and Somali.
The growing use of drones and the existence of “kill lists” have caused serious concerns among civil-liberties groups, but Mr Brennan has been increasingly open about the legal and ethical context in which the strikes take place and is said to want to go further in making the rules governing attacks better codified and more transparent. He is also thought to be keen of transferring the main responsibility for lethal drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command which has a clearer chain of command and greater legal accountability. If Mr Brennan were slowly to shift the CIA away from its heavily paramilitary role of recent years back towards its more traditional function of intelligence gathering and analysis, many in the intelligence community would applaud.
Readers’ comments
Chuck Hagel’s Biggest Task
Obama’s new defense secretary will first and foremost need to get the Asia pivot right.
BY JAMES HOLMES | JANUARY 7, 2013
coggocog
When we have JeanPierreKatz, among us, who needs Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina, (who also sits on the Armed Services Committee) charging our Nebraska naughty-boy, Chuck Hagel, among other things, “out of the ‘Mainstream, whatever that means, as far as Foreign Policy-views. Graham and John McCain? More like Don Quixote and his buddy, Sancho Panza, going after dilapidated windmills.
Jewish Lobby is just about ready to throw their best media campaign, if not already, into the Congressional fisticuffs. Pro Israel groups, such as “Emergency Committee for Israel” calling Chuck Hagel, “not a responsible choice.”
Source: The Economist, January 7, 2013 by MJS, London
Bring it on. Chuck and I, ain’t gonna go away, that easy.
…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com
EC and ECB mind-control_ many politicians and business people in Europe. They
manipulate financial markets, require high interest rate, require low-price
privatization.
This is done with small implants in the head (sometimes involuntary)and
wireless technology, European Parliament calls it “converging technology”. Essentially a sensor is connected to nerves and the brain
teaches itself to recognize the single in this way the thoughts of a person
can be received and also send to him/her. I found such device implanted in my
sinuses with FMRI. I studied at CEU – sponsored by Soros, and Rostowski, the
financial minister of Poland was teaching there (he is also mind_ contolled), Bokrosh – European Parliament as well.
Behind Soros, actually are EC and ECB – the owners and beneficiaries of the
technology. It is not done for security, because I worked for the Bulgarian_
National Bank and I was threatened with this technology to make credit
expansion for the bank cartel (CEU is teaching the central banks in CEE this
actually). From BNB the mind-controlled Staty Statev, Kalin Hristov, Mariela Nenova, Andrey Vassilev, Rosen Rozenov, Grigor Stoevsky, Kristina Karagyozova, Tzvetan Tzalinsky lost 20 bln at stock exchange, 10 bln bad loans, tens of bilions at housing market.
I also met Papademos at a Austrian Central Bank Conference, while he was in
ECB, and I believe he is also mind-controlled. Tha same is valid for Spain, Italy, Greece.
I think the article should have just focused on Hagel, and drilled down a little more on what kind of defense he would like to have (his defense vision).
Brennan could have been dealt with in another article.
With both covered, the article seems a little too high level, and almost rushed to cover the news.
The problem with clearing up the legal questions behind drones is that its essentially being institutionalized without taking into context the broader implications of the weapon. They are being liberally used, and the likelihood of this technology being acquired by countries or groups that don’t care much about accountability, let alone “precision strikes”, should be the larger question at hand. Unfortunately, this debate has been relegated, for the time being to less influential voices.
I’m surprised that there is no mention of opposition to Hagel based on partisan reasons. Hagel has essentially defected from the Republican party and endorsed a democrat (Bob Kerry) to replace him as Nebraska senator. He had previously supported Joseph Sestak, the democratic Senate candidate from Pennsylvania. And, lordy, he gave money to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Add in calling the defense budget bloated, the waging of the Iraq war incompetent and an America first attitude towards Isreal and you have someone who just doesn’t sound like a (current) republican. Perhaps it is time to extract a few licks for his apostasy in the eyes of some Republican senators.
I am not sure these points could be deemed partisan – “the defense budget bloated, the waging of the Iraq war incompetent” – they could possibly represent facts?
`
Ones warranting serious attention possibly, for those who care to learn from the past and improve governance in how our tax dollars are used, just possibly?
Hopefully other sane Republicans don’t think otherwise, or force themselves to abide by some party line along those lines, contrived by the neocon fringe.
I take it you were writing the above with the tongue a bit in cheek?
Imagine if a law was passed stating that only those who have served in the military can vote on sending US troops to war or have a say in the “defence” (i.e. attack) of America, Im not saying this is realistic but it sure would change politics in Washington.
Two purple hearts in Nam, he’s got my vote.
The chickenhawks that make up most of the neocon base would hate it, of course. After all, they specialize in finding as many wars as possible for other people (and other people’s children) to go fight in.
Senator Hagel seems like a good choice. I would like to hear further details on his ideas for defense, fiscal retrenchment, priorities with future defense requirements, support for Afghanistan, improving procurement of weapons systems/practices, resolving the Futenma thorn in the side of Japanese/American relations, etc.
So far if there is any controversy, it is the controvery of contrived controversy in my opinion. Republicans are going to say a former Republican Senator is not a Republican? Hello?
And this is a Republican talking. Like not strong enough supporter for Israel (maybe they should look back at Ike and Ford for perspective); not hard enough on Iran?
As for personal loyalty to President Obama, that seems a bit of a stretch to speculate about right now. The fact is, the position of Senator does give independence, prestige, credibility ad opportunities to those who retire that are not often available in other spheres of life (the most elite boys/girls club).
“It is not ridiculous to suggest that if Mr Hagel is at the Pentagon the mullahs in Tehran may worry a little less about Mr Obama’s promise to use force if necessary to prevent them acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
Right. And it’s not ridiculous for two senators to voice concerns before a senate confirmation hearing. Hopefully, Hagel won’t say anything stupid (as he is wont to do) to scuttle his own ship.
The hysteria about Iran’s “weapon” (so far not known to exist other than in Israel’s imagination) has been, of course, whipped up by Israel. The real objection to the possibility of Iran’s having a nuke is that it would make it impossible to do an “Iraq war” on Iran. In short it would defend Iran from attack. This is what Israel wants to avoid. Even if Iran had a nuke it would not be stupid enough to use it first. Just as neither Russia nor the US did so when both had nukes.
I think it’s pretty clear that Iran is developing the capability for nuclear weapons, and given that Ahmadinejad and others have openly expressed a wish that Israel be destroyed, Israel’s fears are not unreasonable.
But I agree that if Iran were to have nukes, it would not strike first. For one thing, it would result in swift and sure nuclear retaliation. For another, Israel is so tiny that there’s no way it could be struck with a nuclear weapon without a huge loss of Arab and Palestinian life. And the fallout would effect all the nearby nations and territories, probably even Iran itself.
So I think Obama is playing it about right on this. A military attack would be of doubtful success, and at best would only delay the nuclear effort. The best thing is to be patient with sanctions, which are having a real effect on Iranian society.
This will be a litmus test of the degree to which Israel controls US foreign policy. Kristol, the Neocon, has set up a website Chuckhagel.com intended to organize opinion against his appointment. Clearly he is regarded as insufficiently obedient to Israel’s wishes. Quite amazing the degree to which millions of Americans are willing to subordinate American foreign policy to the wishes of a foreign nation.
Thats a borderline idiot statement, Israel has a GDP less then most Oil companies. While AIPAC has some influence it does not tell the US what to do in the Middle East. It certainly did not influence us to go into Iraq or Afghanistan.
If Netanyahu has so much clout why is it that Bush 1 and Baker and Obama essentially told him to shut up and get with the program ? Netanyahu cant even get his own military to attack Iran as they know how foolish an idea it is.
Oil is what controls our Middle East policies.
Mr Graham is the senator for Jerusalem? Who knew?
Half of the U.S. Congress represents Israel. Democrats and Republicans alike (only issue they seem to be able to show some bipartisanship).
Half? Methinks you undercount, sir.
The reason the GOP is against Hagel’s nomination because of his occasional complaints about the influence of the “Jewish lobby” and Jerusalem’s meddling in U.S. domestic politics.
This shows how pathetic the Republican Party has become…
1) Hagel started supporting his family while still a teenager when his father died prematurely
2) He and his brother volunteered for combat in Vietnam and served together there for two years
3) He was awarded TWO PURPLE HEARTS for bravery
4) HE returned home, went into private business, risking his entire life’s savings to help found what became the nation’s second-biggest cellular carrier
5) He then ran the USO and an investment bank
6) His voting record made him the favorite of the American Conservative Union
7) He was re-elected in Nebraska with a margin of 83% (the highest ever)
Talk about the GOP shooting itself in the foot!
More precisely purple hearts are given for injuries and not bravery. It would be nice to have references for yur other assertions as well
I wonder if anyone has any idea as to what the Obama doctrine to International Affairs or Defense is. I read the following sentence from the Economist and I am again left scratching my head wondering what people see in the President:
“Both men see the world very much as Mr Obama does, which is to say, complicated, messy and all too frequently impervious to the use of American power even when wielded with the best of intentions.”
The same man who views the world itself as being too complicated, too messy, and impervious to the power of the American government to where Mr. Obama at times concedes of being helpless- sees the American people and its institutions in an entirely different light. He sees the American people as requiring a heavy and constant application of rules, regulation, and taxation from the American government.
And yet this doesn’t sound strange to people? This doesn’t sound strange to the Economist?
What if Mr. Obama concluded that American society was too complicated, too messy, and too impervious to the machinations of the American government and instead decided to apply rules, regulations, and taxations on the rest of the world.
I think somewhere in there you see the Obama doctrine and perhaps who he sees as the greater threat.
What exactly is wrong with Obama viewing the world as being difficult to intervene and shape according to the wishes of Washington, but viewing the American citizenry as being more malleable by the American government? This is not an insidious ‘Obama doctrine’, this is a straightforward reality that a US president has far more tools to change the behaviour of his compatriots than any foreign nationals. Hence the reason why we separate foreign and domestic policies. Hence this whole idea of a sovereign state.
I really fail to see why you think this is a problem. Are you saying that a US administration should have the exact same amount of influence as it does with Tehran? Or that it should do as little for the Americans as it does for North Koreans? Because that’s a really odd argument to make.
PS. I should stop acting surprised whenever someone makes a stupid argument to disparage a US president, not to mention Obama.
And yet this doesn’t sound strange to people?
No, this sounds like off topic, partisan kvetching.
McCain and Graham are right, the guy was only a senator for 12 years and has a measly 84% rating from the American Conservative Union. He’s barely more conservative than a wimp like… John McCain (82.5%).
Politicians and pundits may be critical of Hagel’s stance of Iran, but in Empirical Magazine’s January 2013 issue, Professor Stephen Zunes reflects on how America’s perception of Iran may be overdrawn. In the interview, Zune’s states “… the Iranian president is not particularly powerful and doesn’t control the military, and how when there is a moderate Iranian President like Khatami [Ahmaddinejad's predecessor], he was virtually ignored by the US media, I basically argue that Ahmedinejad fits so perfectly with the image of the stereotypically middle-eastern leader we love to hate…” To read an excerpt of Zune’s interview, follow our link:
http://empiricalmag.blogspot.com/2012/12/january-excerpt-interview-with-…
Hope? Here, here, Hagel!
John McCain and Lindsey Graham are pathetic. A cranky old coot that has far outlasted his productive shelf life and a lap dog idiot who seconds every one of his stupid whims.
As much as I loathed Liberman at least he has finally retired, thank god !
I have the feeling McCain is going continue being an ass for the remainder of his term.
I remember that thanks in part to Hagel, the Israeli Iron Dome system that shot down over half the Hamas rockets in recent cross-border skirmishes was bought and paid for by American taxpayers, with the Israeli government only shelling out after all development costs had been paid with American aid. Near as I can tell his only major innovation in the realm of foreign relations with Israel is to support Israel the way most American voters want it to be supported and not the way Netanyahu wants it supported.
If Republican opposition to Sen. Hagel is precieved by the public at large as an unthinking reaction driven by a desire to inflict a defeat on Pres. Obama, the cost will exceed the benefit. “We agin him cause the other guy picked him”, won’t enhance the Republican brand.
I think that Republicans are aware of how bad their brand is and are deciding now to go for the “go big or go home” strategy.
It shouldn’t work … but you never know. Americans voted for Bush in ’04 after all.
Thoughts and opinions on America’s kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of American politics and society
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013. All rights reserved.
Jill Lawrence – Jill Lawrence is the managing editor, politics, at National Journal. A political analyst who has covered every presidential election since 1988, her positions have included columnist at Politics Daily, national political correspondent at USA Today and national political writer at the Associated Press.
6 Reasons Obama Is Nominating Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense
By Jill Lawrence
Why did the president blink on the Susan Rice nomination but not on Hagel? History, personal friendship, bipartisanship, and trust are major factors.
Back at the 2004 Republican convention, when then-Senator Chuck Hagel was weighing whether to run for president in 2008, he paid a call on the Iowa delegation. His obligatory joke about his devotion to ethanol went over well. But then, to the puzzlement of some in the room, he started talking to his conservative breakfast audience about the United Nations and the need for multilateralism in tackling world problems.
MORE FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL
- Chuck Hagel’s Biggest Problem: He’s Like President Obama
- Thankless Job Awaits Jack Lew If He Heads to Treasury
- Don’t Bet on Barney Frank for Senate
Needless to say, that wasn’t quite what we were hearing from the convention stage, or for that matter from anyone else in the GOP. Hagel didn’t run for president. But as it turns out, his remarks ended up laying groundwork for a different kind of future — as a potential defense secretary in the Obama Administration.
There are well known controversies associated with Hagel’s expected nomination, involving everything fromclimate change and gay rights to Israel, Iraq, and Iran. But unlike the case of U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, who withdrew as a potential secretary of state nominee amid criticism from Republicans, President Obama is pressing forward with Hagel.
Given the huge battles looming over immigration, the national debt, and other issues, I urged Obama not to pick a fight over Rice. What’s different about Hagel? Here are six possibilities:
- Obama does not want to be seen as caving twice to GOP attacks, Rice followed by Hagel. More importantly, he had a solid alternative for secretary of state in Senator John Kerry. Hagel is unique in several ways, among them that he is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. The two other top candidates for defense secretary, Ashton Carter and Michele Flournoy, did not serve in the military.
- Hagel would be a solid ally at the Pentagon. Obama has had his share of tensions with the military, as many accounts have made clear, including retired General Stanley McChrystal’s new memoir and the Rolling Stone article that led to his resignation. Hawks in Congress have also been highly critical of Obama. Hagel would be a counterweight to demands for more troops and more intervention around the world, particularly in Iran.
- Hagel shares Obama’s caution about military intervention. Though he voted to authorize an invasion of Iraq, Hagel had reservations and later became a sharp critic of the war. All indications are he would be supportive now if Obama decides to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan more quickly than currently planned. Immediately after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, Hagel said that Obama has “got to start heading toward the exits.” The pursuit of bin Laden and al-Qaeda was “the reason we invaded Afghanistan” after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hagel told the Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal Star, not the pursuit of the Taliban. “We have lost our purpose, our objective. We are in a universe of unpredictables and uncontrollables,” he said.
- Hagel would add a tinge of bipartisanship to Obama’s cabinet. He angered many Republicans with his vociferous objections to the Iraq war, declined to back GOP nominee John McCain in 2008 and criticized last year’s Republican hopefuls for being in “race to say who would bomb Iran first.” Still, his overall record in Congress was conservative. In 2007, when Hagel was still weighing a presidential bid, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene told The Washington Times that Hagel is “bright, decent and conservative on almost all issues.” He said Hagel’s lifetime ACU rating was over 85, “and we consider anyone who scores 80 or above a fairly reliable conservative.”
- Obama and Hagel like and trust one another. They traveled together to Iraq in 2008, and Hagel defended him that year against campaign-trail attacks. “Obama and I got to know each other pretty well in the Senate even though he wasn’t there very long,” Hagel said last year in an interview with al-Monitor, an English-language website covering the Middle East. “I have the highest regard for him in every way. I think he’s one of the finest, most decent individuals I’ve ever known, and one of the smartest.”
- Senators are sometimes inclined to give deference to their own in a confirmation process. But Hagel’s blunt run in public life has provoked discomfort and dismay among Republicans and Democrats alike. The former Nebraska senator has a lot of reassuring and convincing to do before he can count on winning that deference from former colleagues and others in the chamber he left four years ago.
You are logged into TIME magazine ALL ACCESS Log Out
President Obama Taps Former GOP Senator Chuck Hagel to Run Pentagon
For the third time in 15 years, a Democratic President has turned to a member of the Republican Party to run his Pentagon. On Monday afternoon, President Obama nominated former Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to serve as Secretary of Defense. Approval in the Senate — where Hagel served for 12 years before retiring in 2008 — is likely but not guaranteed, given his pedigree. He follows in the footsteps of Bill Cohen (Clinton, 1997–2001) and Robert Gates (Obama, 2009–11).
“Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve. He is an American patriot — he enlisted in the Army and volunteered for Vietnam,” Obama said at the White House, noting Hagel was wounded in the war and would be the first Vietnam veteran nominated to run the Pentagon. “Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction. He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud — that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary.”
“I’m grateful for this opportunity to serve our country again, especially its men and women in uniform and their families,” Hagel said, standing alongside Obama. “Mr. President — I will always give you my honest and most-informed counsel.”
That’s something that concerns those opposed to Hagel, who is 66. He’ll bring his own baggage to the Pentagon on every issue from the U.S.’s role in the world and the size and purpose of the U.S. military to striking a proper relationship with Israel.
The nomination comes a month after Administration officials floated Hagel’s name, only to see it batted around like a piñata by those against the pick. It’s apparent that the White House, already smarting over the pre-emptive derailment of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State, wasn’t about to let that happen a second time. Ash Carter, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and Michèle Flournoy — who stepped down as the Pentagon’s No. 3 civilian last year and would have been the first woman to hold the post — were also-rans.
Hagel has already run into a buzz saw of opposition, even from members of his own party. “I like Chuck Hagel,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN on Sunday. “He served with distinction in Vietnam as an enlisted man — two Purple Hearts. But quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking, I believe, on most issues regarding foreign policy.” If confirmed, Hagel “would be the most antagonistic Secretary of Defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history,” he said.
Foreign policy heavyweights are lining up on both sides of the nomination. Those supporting Hagel include Bush 41 National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, Reagan Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci and Ryan Crocker, the highly regarded former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Opponents include at least three GOP Senators — Dan Coats of Indiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Cornyn of Texas — as well as vocal critics like Josh Block, who heads the Washington-based pro-Israel group the Israel Project, and William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a conservative opinion magazine. “The next secretary of defense should be a well-respected mainstream national security leader,” Kristol wrote last week, “not an out-of-the-mainstream mediocrity.”
On the deployment side of the ledger, Hagel is likely to push back against U.S. military commanders who want to pull the remaining 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan out as slowly as possible before all combat forces are due home by 2015. There’s one Hagel quote already ricocheting around the Pentagon, concerning President George W. Bush’s plan in 2007 to dispatch 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to try to quell the nascent civil war there. Hagel said it could be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the country since Vietnam if carried out.
Well, it was carried out, and by most accounts the so-called surge calmed things down in Iraq. “I’ll have a hard time voting for anybody to be Secretary of Defense who believes that the surge was a foreign policy blunder,” Graham said on Sunday.
How much such comments will detract from Hagel’s time as a decorated infantryman in Vietnam remains an open question. But more important than his service there more than 40 years ago is the time he and Obama shared in the Senate from 2004 to ’08, when they served together on the Foreign Relations Committee and traveled to overseas hot spots.
Hagel would be the first Defense Secretary since the late Caspar Weinberger, Defense chief in the Reagan Administration, to have worn a U.S. military uniform in combat — and the first enlisted man. That gives him instant credibility. Hagel “led an infantry squad in Vietnam during the bloody fighting following the Tet offensive,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said of him at a Memorial Day service last May. “Like millions of our generation, he demonstrated bravery, patriotism and heroism on the battlefield.”
With his Hagel pick following Panetta’s Democratic interregnum, Obama gets Republican cover to try to retool the Pentagon. That will include its missions as well as its business dealings. If he wants to, with Hagel in charge of the Defense department, Obama will be able to press for more substantial changes than he could with a Democrat sitting in that huge E-ring office. (Atlantic contributing editor Yochi Dreazen recently wrote about this strange state of affairs.)
But Hagel has never seemed to harbor a sense that it is the mission of the U.S. — or its military — to spread democracy around the world. “Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations,” he wrote in 2006. “We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation — regardless of our noble purpose.” That echoes Obama’s thinking on the topic.
Former Senator Cohen applauds Obama’s pick and dismisses concerns that he will make bad policy. “You want a Secretary of Defense to be strong-minded,” Cohen says. “But he has to understand that this is not about Chuck Hagel, because he is not going to determine policy in the Middle East or with Iran. That’s the call of the President.”
Cohen, a onetime GOP Senator from Maine, embraces the idea of having a Republican Defense Secretary in a Democratic President’s Cabinet, especially when military spending cuts are looming. “You’re picking the best person to handle the job who can build a consensus on Capitol Hill, basically,” he says of the key challenge Hagel faces. “Having a Republican when you’re downsizing sends the message that we’re going to do this on a nonpartisan basis, with this man who has a military background, a war hero, Purple Hearts, etc.”
Cohen adds that while the Democratic Party is unfairly portrayed as being weak on defense, the Hagel nomination gives Obama some political cover. “Having a Republican there when you’re downsizing really takes away the issue of, There go the Democrats again,” he says.
The nod could generate some opposition from Jewish groups who don’t see Hagel as fervent enough in supporting Israel. He has criticized loose talk about U.S. military strikes against Iran over its nuclear program. Iran, for its part, has been paying close attention to Hagel and his new assignment.
Hagel’s lack of traditional GOP ideology might give him an edge when it comes to weaning the U.S. military off the hundreds of billions of dollars in added funding Congress gave it following 9/11. The libertarian Cato Institute suggests he would preside over a slimmed-down, stay-at-home military.
But there are elements within the GOP who deem Hagel untrustworthy, based largely on the sense that his advocacy of noninterventionism represents an abdication of U.S. power from the world stage. “Hagel IS a Dem,” tweeted ardent GOP hawk Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, relaying a tweet bemoaning the lack of Democrats in charge at the Pentagon recently.
The disdain is mutual. Hagel summed up the view of his party in a May interview with Josh Rogin on Foreign Affairs’ Cable blog. “I don’t think you can lead by ideology. Ideology gets a nation into a lot of trouble,” Hagel said. “There’s a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today, and that scares people.”
elcidharth
Here is the Hagel problem in a nutshell. Obama is suspected by many in this country as being a bit ‘wishy-washy’ on defense. The selection of Hagel can be construed as a move to defang the U.S. military establishment. We are currently engaged with many adversaries who would be quite happy to see deep cuts in the research and development of cutting edge weaponry just at a time when rapid gains in technology require us to do even more than we have to stay on top of this race. I hate war, but being in second place in military science does not look like the place I want this country to be.
@newsy97 Did it ever occur to you that maybe Hagel, who fought in Vietnam and had the balls to speak out against the invasion of Iraq might be in the best position to get rid of some of the waste in the military? Building weapons, planes and ships that the military doesn’t want in order to placate congressmen who fight for jobs in their districts is hardly developing cutting edge weaponry. This man just might speak out as your conservative mind worries about us being “second”.
OBAMA GOT THE MAN WHO HIT US ON 9/11. THERE’S NOTHING WISHY WASHY ABOUT THAT.
So glad President Obama stood up for Senator Hagel today – now if the Senate can put their shenanigans aside and confirm this American hero.
I have great respect for Hagel’s service record, but sergeant to the highest military post in the world is quite a skip in pay grades. Are we promoting to his level of incompetence? Dunno, just posing a question. Are there no other qualified generals, neutered enough for Obama to take the job? Dunno, just posing a question.
@newsy97 How about a younger George Herbert Walker Bush? Think he could make the grade with today’s Republicans, newsy97? No. The former Republican president of the United States of America didn’t finish the job in Iraq, according to some (Indeed, 43). How about Condi Rice? You think the neo cons would want her after she obviously “served at the pleasure of the President” and would probably adjust to this president. No. Not qualified. Why would a general necessarily be qualified? Because he’d be gung-ho war if not “neutered enough for Obama?”
@newsy97 Questioning someone’s credentials just because he was an enlisted soldier, as opposed to an officer, many years ago tells me a few things about your character. Of course you forgot to mention that he is also a Senator and a professor at Georgetown University. Judging from your writing style and the use of words like “dunno,” I don’t think you should be judging anyone’s credentials.
@SandeepSingh @newsy97 ’Dunno’ is an American colloquial manner of speech. I do not think it is indicative of one’s level of education.
One thing I have always espoused is a mandatory, standardized, publicly reported IQ test for all political aspirants. The fact that Mr. Hagel won public office does not prove his competency as an administrator. The fact that he was a professor could very well be due to the fact that they like to hire Senators (for prestige reasons). Again, not proof of the skill sets required to run the U.S. military.
Dunno, just sayin….
@newsy97 @SandeepSingh Sounds like you talk a lot but “dunno” a lot. Anyhow, an IQ test requirement would bar about 95% of republicans from holding office. So I say we leave that one alone for diversity reasons if nothing else.
> Are we promoting to his level of incompetence?
You need to make the case that Hagel is ‘incompetent’ in the first place. You haven’t.
> Dunno, just posing a question.
It’s kind of a dumb and prejudicial question, isn’t it?
Sergeant Hagel is one of us. He has lived the way we live, he has bled the way some of us have bled. We’re proud to have him as our leader during this tough time of cuts and withdrawals. Those questioning his ability to do the job based only on the vague notion that “he doesn’t support Israel” should re-align their priorities or go run for the knesset instead of the U.S. Congress. Either serve our best interests, or get the heck out of office.
@SandeepSingh @newsy97 Don’t have an old lady, you must be doing my gay houseboy.
The GOP’s obstinate refusal to endorse a member of their own party epitomizes their obstructionist agenda.
It is never an argument on the merits, but rather, a series of illusory litmus tests that obscure the threshold inquiry: will any particular nomination fulfill his/her duties to the People of the United States competently, loyally and professionally.
“Hagel’s critics helpfully informed us that Paul Wolfowitz considers someone else a better choice. Were Cheney and Paul Bremer not available for advice?” (Jim Fallows)
The President deserves great deference to his cabinet choices and Obama choose Chuck Hagel.It’s not about experience, education or intellectual accomplishments. Ash Carter and Michele Flournoy win on these hands down.And his lack of legislative achievement is irrelevant.What Chuck has what few do and that trumps his competition. Obama likes him and he shares the Presidents world view.Panetta was a disappointment, merely parroting the brass’s assessments of doom and gloom over sequestration demanded defense cuts.Chuck can gut those Pentagon programs and troop strength based on his 45 year old experience leading 7 men in combat in Vietnam.
> “I like Chuck Hagel,” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CNN on Sunday.
What, Lieberman or McCain weren’t available?
> …by most accounts the so-called “surge” calmed things down in Iraq.
I really don’t know who you are talking to, Mark – besides Graham, who has been beating this dead talking point for five years – but the Iraq ‘surge’ wasn’t the primary reason hostilities in Iraq lessened. Without the Iraqis themselves finally deciding to stop fighting each other and everyone else, Hagel (and others) would have been exactly right in his assessment. Violence in Iraq – measured in number of attacks – peaked in June-July of ’07, months after the ‘surge’ began.
What are more likely reasons for the reduction in violence? Entire neighborhoods became homogenized – a polite way of saying ethnically cleansed – or abandoned. Insurgents, knowing of the troop increase, simply moved to other parts of the country. Probably the biggest reason was the actions of militia leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr issuing directives to cease hostilities. After al-Sadr’s ceasefire was called in August of 2007, we saw the number of attacks drop precipitously.
> But there are elements in the GOP who deem Hagel untrustworthy…
Again, if Bill Kristol is saying one thing, you can be pretty sure the opposite is true…not that these ‘elements’ are pretty much the same ones who take issue with most of what the President tries to accomplish due to ideology and partisanship. Why journalists take the likes of Graham and Kristol seriously is beyond me.
I hope your trip was enjoyable Ivy_B. I had a great Christmas and a horrible New Year. Now I’ve got the flu. OTOH, I’m finished with crazy shifts and I’m on vacation. Somehow having the flu and being on vacation doesn’t seem fair. My son also moved out. I really miss him, but I still changed the locks. (just kidding)
Perhaps my memory is fading but I distinctly remember President Obama taking the oath of office four years ago at the Capital by saying “I Barack Obama, swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” I don’t recall the President swearing to do everything that Israel’s right wing government demands and to bow before Netanyahu. I don’t remember the oath stating that his main responsibility is to Israel. His responsibility is what is best for America, not any other country.
It’s bad enough that Netanyahu tried to intervene in our election by endorsing Romney but it’s even worse when Israel tries to dictate to our President who he can select for a position in his cabinet. 70% of American Jews voted to Barack Obama two months ago and my friends and I are getting embarassed as well as angry at the behaviour of Israel’s government and far right American Jews towards our President, and if you take the time to read the thousands of comments posted on the New York Times, Washington Post, and dozens of other top media sites you will find that the American people are getting fed up with the current government in Israel and more and more people are sadly questioning American Jews committment to America and asking if Israel is more important to them than their own country .
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, not Prime Minister of Israel and his sole duty is to do what is best for America, not for Israel, England, Japan, Canada, Germany, or any other country. There is not one other country in the world that tries to influence the behavior of our President and elected leaders except one – Israel, and the more the right wingers try to force things on our government the more the American people are pushing back and one day the push back will be with reduced aid and assistance at the United Nations. Bill Clinton, when he was President, was heard making the comment of Netanyahu that “he behaves as though America was a nation of seven million people and Israel was a nation of three hundred million people the way he makes demands.”
Israel relies on America for protection at the United Nations, and for much of its military aid. Israel needs America far more than America needs Israel. There are more and more members of Congress who are criticizing the behaviour of the current Israeli government behind closed doors, afraid to go public and upset AIPAC but one day this may change to Israel’s detriment. Netanyahu and his right wing government need to stay out of our politics and worry about their own country. Israel receives ten times more aid every year from America than America gives to the world’s ten poorest countries combined and a little gratitude might help rather than continuing to put your thumb in the eye of your biggest defender and protector.
On the GOP’s unseasonable deference to Israel:
“Thy love afar is spite at home.” – Emerson
@deksoftwareint Perhaps someone should remind our congress (especially Lindsey Graham et al.) that they’re not serving in the knesset. Their loyalty should be to the American people, not to Israel.
Hagel: ”I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war.” Fox News Sunday (John Roberts) asks of Hagel’s statement: ”Is that a reasonable position?”
Scarborough states/asks that “Certainly no one in Washington outside a small group of Neocons believes that Hagel is out of the mainstream on U.S. foreign policy, do they?” Apparently, the invasion of Iraq can be erased just as easily as the myth that Reagan cut taxes.
Hey, what Hagel said is literally a truism. Of course it’s reasonable. Of course we should avoid a needless, senseless war. If it’s needless and senseless, there’s no logical basis for getting into it. If the Repubs want to go after him for something, they should accuse him of hiding behind tautologies.
The issue is what Hagel thinks is needless and senseless. If the Senate wants to ask him something, that’s where to start.
But there are elements in the GOP who deem Hagel untrustworthy, based largely on the sense that his advocacy of U.S. non-interventionism represents an abdication of U.S. power from the world stage. “Hagel IS a Dem,” tweeted ardent GOP hawk Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, relaying a tweet bemoaning the lack of Democrats in charge at the Pentagon recently.
I don’t know what it is about GOPers that make their idea of USAs role in the world that we blow shit up?
Dems have been charged with surrendering for a long time now and yet the body count keep piling up.
What, no angle of “this might be the Republican Civil War on full display”?
The republican civil war is on full display. Either that or they’re just fighting among themselves again and everything will be fine after some angry “make-up” sex. Ewwww. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
I’m really not going to be bothered with an idiot who thinks the courts aren’t even listening to the legal challenges of Obama’s right to be President – while the courts do dismiss every legal challenge as “not having standing”, they also go out of their way to, as part of their decisions, demonstrate that, actually, Obama has the right to be President – citing motions passed by Congress and the Hawaiian birth certificate even before the “long form” was made publicly available.
@MementoMori thanks for the laugh. I stopped here: “black-Muslim, anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian “Manchurian candidate” fraudster socialist tyrant in the Oval Office” – my doctor told me to cut down on raving lunatic spittle, especially on mondays.
Photo quote: “…is expected to dominate Chuck Hagel…” or should it read “nominate Chuck Hagel”. It’s sad when a respected media outlet like Time can not take the time to proof their own material. It makes me wonder what other sort of errors slip through? Not just grammar and spelling but content and sources.
MrBeap, the same care and thoroughness isn’t spent on the blog. He’ll probably correct it though. Of course it could be an S & M thing and Obama will dominate Hagel and maybe even pinch his nipples.
We need a SecDef who knows every Marine doesn’t need to lug around a 4 ton, M777, 155 mm Howitzer that needs to be moved by helicopter.
Isn’t it just a bit strange that a Republican Senate may balk at confirming a Republican former Senator? As for policy, I thought the President made the policy. If Hagel didn’t think he could carry out Obama’s policies, he wouldn’t accept the position — right? So what’s the problem?
The idea is hardly original with me that those who balk at Hagel for SecDef are doing so not because he would deviate from Obama’s policies but because he would carry them out. Who will be the first to own up?
bobell, I think it’s both a practical and a political move on Obama’s part. Personally, I like the idea of having a Secretary of Defense that has fought and is reluctant to get us into more conflits without an over-riding reason.
I also don’t like the idea of getting a hawk in there that wants to find a place to test new weapons systems and makes sure that defense stocks keep rising.
@sacredh I hate war. That said, the only thing worse is being weaker than the bad guys. The logarithmic increase in the sophistication of weaponry requires us to stay on the cutting edge or we will cede that advantage to China, Russia, Iran etc. So if you want big cuts to the military, be careful what you wish for.
newsy97, China spends roughly 100 billion on their military. We spend roughly 700 billion. Something is seriously out of kilter.
I am not worried about China. After all, what type of business person destroys what he or she already owns. China would not want to ruin its investment.
SecDef does have input into policy and we’ve seen evidence that Obama listens to people to help forge his own policy so the complaint isn’t entirely illegitimate. I recall us being up in arms about a particular nominee for Ambassador to the UN in part because he advocated for the dismantling of the UN
January 7, 2013
Most in U.S. Say Politics in Washington Cause Serious Harm
Slight majority optimistic that things will improve over next 10 years
PRINCETON, NJ — More than three-quarters of Americans (77%) say the way politics works in Washington these days is causing serious harm to the United States, providing still another indicator of the low esteem in which Americans hold their elected officials and the way the federal government works.
These results are from a Dec. 14-17 USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted in the middle of stalled negotiations between Congress and the president on the issue of averting the looming fiscal cliff. Americans were split in their opinions of the agreement ultimately reached at the end of the year, with more negative than positive approval ratings for the way the various leaders involved handled it.
The finding that most Americans think politics are hurting the country fits with a number of additional measures showing that Americans hold the federal government in general and Congress in particular — the main instruments of how American politics work — in low regard. The 19% of Americans who do not feel negatively about the way politics are being handled is quite close to Congress’ current 18% job approval rating. Confidence in Congress as an institution — the percentage with a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it — is at 13%, and 10% and 14% of Americans rate the honesty and ethics of members of Congress and senators, respectively, as high or very high. Also, last August, 23% of Americans gave the “federal government” a positive rating, while 14% rated it neutrally, and 60% gave it a negative rating.
Despite these low ratings of the federal government and Congress, Americans are somewhat more positive about the presidency. Obama’s job approval rating has been above 50% in recent weeks, and confidence in the presidency in general was 37% in Gallup’s June update. Thus, the American public’s negative views of the impact of politics appear to be aimed more at Congress and government generally than at the executive branch.
GOP, Democrats, Independents Agree That Washington Politics Are Harmful
A majority of all partisan groups express negative sentiments about the harmful impact of politics in Washington. Republicans are, however, modestly more negative than either independents or Democrats.
Americans More Optimistic Than Pessimistic About the Future
Americans are more likely to express optimism than pessimism when asked about the future of the way Washington politics work. Fifty-two percent say they are optimistic that the way politics work in Washington will improve in the next 10 years; 45% are pessimistic.
Democrats are significantly more likely to be optimistic than are Republicans, perhaps because a Democratic president is currently in the White House. Younger Americans are slightly more positive than older Americans.
Bottom Line
It is not surprising that most Americans believe the way politics work today in the nation’s capital is causing serious harm to the country — given numerous indicators from prior research showing the negative image Americans have of their elected officials and the federal government in general. A little more surprising, perhaps, is the finding that more than half of Americans believe that things will get better in the coming decade.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data.
For more details on Gallup’s polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.
-
2 personal results. 317 other results.
Ad related to @elcidharth.com Chuck Hagel
-
Chuck Hagel is Wrong – Republicans and Democrats Agree
www.chuckhagel.com/Help Us Stop His Nomination
Search Results
-
-
2 personal results. 582,000 other results.
Ad related to Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Karma and I
-
The Real Chuck Hagel – He’s bad on Israel. Bad on Defense.
www.chuckhagel.com/Help protect America. Stop him now.
Search Results
-
4 personal results. 3,150,000 other results.
Search Results
-
AIPAC – The American Israel Public Affairs Committee
www.aipac.org/Non-PAC self-identified as ‘America’s pro-Israel lobby’, working to strengthen relations between the United States and Israel. Offers Middle East news, analysis …
-
American Israel Public Affairs Committee – Wikipedia, the free …
en.wikipedia.org/…/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committ…The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States.
-
Will AIPAC Get Out-Flanked On Hagel? – The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/…/will-aipac-get-out-flanked-on-hagel…Dec 14, 2012 – Peter Beinart on how pro-Israel groups to AIPAC’s right are likely to go after prospective Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
-
AIPAC (AIPAC) on Twitter
AIPAC. @AIPAC. America’s pro-Israel lobby. http://www.aipac.org · 4,063 Tweets · 1,281 Following · 16,115 Followers. Follow Following Unfollow Blocked …
-
News for AIPAC
-
AIPAC’s Uncertain Role in the Upcoming Hagel Nomination
The Atlantic - 49 minutes agoAIPAC tries — sometimes imperfectly — to both be, and appear to be, bipartisan. And the people who run it aren’t stupid.
-
Commentary Magazine – 1 hour ago
-
Jewish Telegraphic Agency – 4 days ago
-
-
Chuck Hagel, Oops, Check Jewish Hatemongering
Sid Harth – Dec 22, 2012 – Limited –Chuck Hagel, Oops, Check Jewish Hatemongering Of Chuck Hagel, AIPAC Hatemongering and I
-
Stop AIPAC! For a new foreign policy
stopaipac.org/Tears in Occupied Basra, Iraq. AIPAC had played a key role in fomenting support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is playing an even greater role in supporting a …
-
AIPAC picks the wrong battle with Hagel – Los Angeles City Buzz …
http://www.examiner.com/…/aipac-picks-the-wrong-battle-with-hage…Dec 19, 2012 – Picking the wrong battle at the wrong time, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee didn’t hesitate to voice its opposition to President …
-
Remember When Chuck Hagel Voted for AIPAC-Supported John …
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/…;aipac…/266486/Dec 19, 2012 – The idea that the former Nebraska senator is implacably anti-Israel isn’t just irresponsible, it’s plainly contradicted by history. -
Occupy AIPAC! | Home
http://www.occupyaipac.org/AIPAC has increasingly become a target of Palestine solidarity protests, especially at its annual policy … December 1st, 2012 · Posted by Occupy AIPAC!
-
AIPAC Takes a Big Hit » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the …
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/16/aipac-takes-a-big-hit/Nov 16, 2012 – Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds from AIPAC and some wealthy Jewish Americans that were contributed to back …
Steve Clemons: Officials: Chuck Hagel Was a ‘Gift From God’ for the …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/officials-chuck-hagel-was_b_242…18 hours ago – The bottom line: Chuck Hagel kept the facility open and expanded it when he … In particular, the author cites Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs …. Secretary of Defense really is a karmic squashing of Joe Lieberman.
-
-
Chuck Hagel To Be Nominated As Secretary Of Defense: Reports
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/chuck-hagel-defense_n_2411434…3 days ago – Chuck Hagel is poised to get the nomination to lead the Department of Defense. ….. Secretary of Defense really is a karmic squashing of Joe Lieberman. ….. in 2010 that “Goyim[non-Jews] are born only for the sole purpose to …
-
Log Cabin Republicans Criticize Chuck Hagel’s Gay Rights Record …
by Amanda Terkel – in 1,941 Google+ circles – More by Amanda Terkel7 hours ago – The ad by the conservative gay rights group criticizes Hagel’s record on issues … Secretary of Defense really is a karmic squashing of Joe Lieberman. … Staff calls Jewish groups in US to answer concerns about Chuck Hagel: …
-
Obama to pick Chuck Hagel as Pentagon chief
4 hours ago – Fellow Republicans have criticized Chuck Hagel for being hostile to Israel and soft on Iran. … I use my karma for good! Anonymous Coward User ID: … Thread: Jewish Lobby declares War on Chuck Hagel, Sec of Def Nominee …
-
Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Karma and I
Sid Harth – 24 seconds ago – Limited –Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Karma and I Of Paranoid Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I
-
Results for similar searches
-
Chuck Hagel – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_HagelCharles Timothy “Chuck” Hagel (born October 4, 1946) is an American ….. In a 2006 interview with Aaron David Miller, Hagel said that “[t]he Jewish lobby …
More results for chuck hagel’s -
Stephens: Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem – WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/article/global_view.htmlPrejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from Nebraska who is …
More results for chuck hagel’s -
Chuck Hagel’s record on Israel draws scrutiny – Josh Gerstein – Politico
http://www.politico.com/…/chuck-hagels-record-on-israel-draws-scr…Dec 15, 2012 – Some in the Jewish community and other Israel backers are reacting with alarm to reports… … (Also on POLITICO: 10 facts about Chuck Hagel) …
More results for chuck hagel’s
-
Jewish lobby « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/tag/jewish-lobby/In the spring of 2010, a sheik in the government of Qatar began talks with the U.S. consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton about developing a plan to build a …
-
-
Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, Chuck Hagel and I « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2013/…/jewish-lobby-aipac-chuck-hagel-and-i/2 days ago – NBCNews.com Hagel likely to be nominated for Defense Secretary next week By NBC’s Chuck Todd Multiple sources on Capitol Hill and in key …
-
Mitt Romney’s Demons and I « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2012/11/05/mitt-romneys-demons-and-i/Nov 5, 2012 – So sue me…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com · Of Liars, Highfliers and I » …. Jewish Lobby, Hindu Lobby, Terrorism and I | इदं न मम …
-
elcidharth
elcidharth.com/elcidharth (Logout)Follow my comments …… India: A Rapacious Hindu Culture and I · Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, Chuck Hagel and I · Gerard Depardieu’s Flight From …
-
So sue me…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/…/so-sue-me-and-i-am-sid-harthelcidharth-co…Nov 4, 2012 – Republican Dogs Revealed, Oops, Reviled « elcidharth. Chris Christie Boxes Boehner’s Ears « elcidharth. Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, Chuck Hagel …
-
Gaza Strip, Oops, Ehud Barak’s Striptease « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2012/…/gaza-strip-oops-ehud-baraks-striptease…Nov 15, 2012 – However, Israel lobby, well funded and deadly, has changed to whole perspective on Arab Israeli relations, such as they are.So much so that …
-
Foreign Policy Wonks, Yahoos and I « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2013/01/…/foreign-policy-wonks-yahoos-and-…2 days ago – Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, Chuck Hagel and I » … Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel. And I see …
-
Of Jewish Survival and I « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2012/12/09/1094/Dec 9, 2012 – News Analysis A Tepid ‘Welcome Back’ for Spanish Jews By DOREEN CARVAJAL Published: December 8, 2012 PARIS Enlarge This Image …
-
Results for similar searches
-
Jewish lobby – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobbyThe term Jewish lobby is used to describe organized lobbying attributed to Jews on domestic and foreign policy decisions, as a political participant of …
More results for jewish lobbies -
A Look At The Powerful Jewish Lobby In America
rense.com/general27/jlobby.htm“People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful.” [note 2]; Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although …
More results for jews lobby
-
Ad related to @elcidharth.com Jewish Lobby
Barack Checks Chuck Hagel « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2012/12/13/barack-checks-chuck-hagel/Dec 13, 2012 – Hagel Said to Top Obama’s List to Take Over at Pentagon By Hans Nichols – Dec 13, 2012 5:02 PM ET Jim Hinnat/U.S. Army via Bloomberg …
-
-
Chuck Hagel, Oops, Check Jewish Hatemongering « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/…/chuck-hagel-oops-check-jewish-hatemonger…Dec 22, 2012 – I find strange Jewish uproar against Chuck Hagel sickening. He has already apologized for his unfortunate remarks against Hormel.
-
Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, Chuck Hagel and I – elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2013/01/2 days ago – 1 post published by elcidharth during January 2013.
-
Chuck Hagel « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/tag/chuck-hagel/Things are complicated, yet simpletons use their own views to make it simple. For instance Jewish and American Islamophobia. Oops, forgot all about Hindu …
-
John Kerry:Too Tall to Fall, Oops, Fail? « elcidharth
elcidharth.com/2012/12/…/john-kerrytoo-tall-to-fall-oops-fail/Dec 21, 2012 – Chuck Hagel, Oops, Check Jewish Hatemongering » … Former Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been the most …
-
Of Chuck Hagel, Jewish Paranoia and I | My Sister Eileen
mysistereileen.org/…/of-chuck-hagel-jewish-paranoia-and-i/Dec 22, 2012 – I find strange Jewish uproar against Chuck Hagel sickening. … How come Chuck Hagel is being subjected with sheer venomous attacks?
-
Good News from Kabul: A More Peaceful Ashura This Year | TIME.com
nation.time.com/…/good-news-from-kabul-a-more-p…by John Wendle – in 78 Google+ circles – More by John WendleNov 28, 2012 – elcidharth. smedleybutlersociety. Michael Moore: Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq. David Westin: Consider the Source …
-
Strike on Iran’s nuclear program could provoke bloody month-long …
news.nationalpost.com/…/strike-on-irans-nuclear-progr… – CanadaAug 15, 2012 – http://elcidharth.com/2012/12/13/barack-checks-chuck-hagel/ Barack Checks Chuck Hagel « elcidharth. [...] Strike on Iran’s nuclear program …
-
Prejudice Isn’t The Issue Here — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/…/prejudice-isnt-the-issue-here/Dec 21, 2012 – In 1998, Chuck Hagel, then less than two years into the first of his two terms as a Republican Senator from Nebraska, opposed …. “But Chuck Hagel is a Republican,” you’re objecting. Yep. …… elcidharth December 22, 2012 …
-
Twitter Trackbacks for The Hagel Haters [thedailybeast.com] on …
topsy.com/www.thedailybeast.com/…/the-hagel-haters.html?…Dec 13, 2012 – Chuck Hagel in an extremely negative light.’ http://t.co/ … elcidharth Sid Harth I just left a comment in “The Hagel Haters ” http://t.co/ZjRVnAWL …
…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com
-
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I « elcidharth [...]
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I « elcidharth [...]
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I « elcidharth [...]
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I « elcidharth [...]
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I « elcidharth [...]
[...] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I | elcidharth [...]
[…] Of Jewish Lobby, Pacific Pivot and I […]