How Far Are People Willing to Go for Hagel?

By Michael Brendan Dougherty • December 21, 2012, 8:33 AM

Ever since the news came out that former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel may be Obama’s preferred choice to head the Department of Defense, I’ve had difficulty developing what we call a “strong take” on it.

I never exactly warmed to Hagel as a champion of foreign policy realism. What good is this realism if its contribution to the debate is only a set of sad faces and “grave concerns” voiced years after it endorsed the disaster? In the Iraq debacle, Hagel’s function was to eventually embody the troubled conscience of a foreign policy establishment that could no longer ignore its own failures. The absolute best case for Hagel is that he somehow “learned his lesson” and was truly committed to a gradual demilitarization of America’s foreign policy. There are data-points to support this view, but Hagel hasn’t connected them in a speech or a book.

One is tempted to throw in behind him merely to deny the neoconservatives the scalp they so desperately want. Frankly, their campaign against Hagel is shaping up to be more sophisticated than I expected. First they charge that Hagel smells like an anti-Semite. Or they quoted a number of unnamed sources saying he was a jerk. The crudeness of the attack inspired a wave of liberal support for Hagel. Now he is being accused of being too anti-gay in the 1990s. My guess is that liberals will fall silent before this one until Hagel comes out as “evolved” on the issue.

It is pretty dangerous for conservative outlets like the Washington Free Beacon to help make 1990s era pro-gay rights views a litmus test for Cabinet appointments. Presumably that is why no one there was willing to byline that post. They’re inadvertently excluding many of the people that would be most amenable to their views in the next Republican administration.

So how do we feel about the Hagel nomination? Of course it is the nature of things that you embolden a bully by not standing up to him. But letting the outsized and hysterical reaction of neoconservatives dictate my judgement of him seems just as counter-productive. He’s much more important to them than he is to me. I’ll be happy to see them embarrassed if he gets the post. But I don’t see his appointment as changing Obama’s foreign policy for the better. If anything it helps to further entrench a foreign policy establishment that still needs to be chastised.

I’m not going to the wall for Chuck Hagel.

Posted in Foreign policy, Politics. Tagged anti-semitism, Chuck Hagel, Department of Defense, neoconservatism.

20 Responses to How Far Are People Willing to Go for Hagel?

Glaivester says:

December 21, 2012 at 10:22 am

Exactly. I’m more concerned about the GOP not opposing him, because I think that if they do, they will lose and it will give Obama more political capital and the GOP less. Considering that the policies that Obama promotes on, e.g. race and immigration, are intended to destroy the U.S., and that his position on guns is likely to be anti-freedom, I don’t want to hand him any victories.

Having said that, I don’t see Hagel being Secretary of Defense as being a particularly good or bad thing, and assume that in the long run it does not matter a huge deal, so I’m not planning to go to the mat for him to be nominated or if he is to petition Obama to go to the mat for his confirmation. If he is nominated, I think he should be confirmed, but I am more concerned with the GOP not shooting themselves in the foot over it than I am with making certain that the neocons lose if they oppose him.

Likewise, I think that in policy terms, the resignation of Susan Rice as a candidate probably is not all that important. However, I think it was extremely important in one sense: given her role in the Ben-Ghazi cover-up, for her to be nominated, or even confirmed, would show the administration that it could do anything it wanted with no consequences. Even a minor pushback like this was a victory.
Justin Logan says:

December 21, 2012 at 10:25 am

I dunno, Michael. I’m usually on board with making the perfect the enemy of the good, but in this case I’m not seeing it. Can you think of someone who stood a chance of being nominated you’d support? If not, I don’t know, you’re just hoping it gets a lot worse so it can get a lot better at some undetermined point in the future.

If he gets through, it’s a signal to others that modest political bravery on foreign policy is not a death sentence. I see this as being about about inching the center of the foreign policy mainstream toward sanity, not immanentizing the eschaton.
TomB says:

December 21, 2012 at 10:25 am

Gob-smacking. After a full decade and 1/2 of Republican congresspeople almost to a man having revealed themselves as being the most sheep-like, witless, craven, war-whooping, bottom-feeding, titanically stupid and devastatingly wrong creatures imaginable, Dougherty comes out saying no, some unidentified cost is just simply too great for him to come out in support of one of the mere two or three who *didn’t* fit that bill. Regarding a sphere in which that individual *most* distinguished himself from the unspeakable herd.

To borrow from Martin Niemöller then …

First they came for the arabists in the government,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an arabist in government.

Then they came for the mere independent-minded in government,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an independent-mind in government.

And then they came for the patriots in government,
and I said ….

Semper pfui, anyone?
William Dalton says:

December 21, 2012 at 11:18 am

If Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as SecDef can crack the hold of the Israeli lobby upon Congress, and more on Capitol Hill believe they can start speaking as he did, that they are representatives for their constituents in the United States, not the State of Israel, nothing Hagel might do or not do when in office need be as significant. That will be reason enough to fight this battle, if a fight is necessary.
CharleyCarp says:

December 21, 2012 at 11:41 am

If the people doing most of the complaining had supported the President, he might have more of a reason to listen to them. Presumably — and actually we don’t even have to presume this — people who opposed the President’s reelection continue to oppose every legislative proposal and appointment he makes (or, as the case may be, hints at making).
Michael Brendan Dougherty says:

December 21, 2012 at 12:51 pm

TomB,

How has Hagel distinguished himself in the cause of a realistic foreign policy, beyond attending a few meetings for the Committee for the Republic and giving a speech in 2006?

My thinking is that if we’re going to risk dying on a hill for an appointee he should at least be someone who didn’t vote for the Iraq War.

Best,
Michael
cameyer says:

December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm

I agree completely. Realists, anti-interventionists, anyone opposed to neoconservatism and ‘Israel: Right or Wrong’ should go to the mat on this one. The neocons are like zombies who just won’t die.
James Canning says:

December 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm

To what extent does bad advice from Dennis Ross cause Obama to blunder in the Middle East? Wouldn’t Chuck Hagel be able to offset at least some of the bad advice tendered by Dennis Ross?
SDS says:

December 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm

“The absolute best case for Hagel is that he somehow “learned his lesson” and was truly committed to a gradual demilitarization of America’s foreign policy. ”

That’s exactly right–And you won’t get that from very many other “conservatives”….

Let’s face it; we’re all evolving as we go; and we’re all faced with internal conflicts of opinion– and anyone who
doesn’t change their mind over their time here isn’t really thinking….

I’d be happy to get some one that could say-
“wait a minute”…..
Justin Raimondo says:

December 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm

This isn’t about Hagel. It’s about the iron grip of foreign lobbyists on the foreign policy establishment in Washington: until and unless that is broken, we’ll never have a rational foreign policy. And I have to say that the slightly bored tone of this blog post betrays a failure to understand the stakes: what we’re talking about here is the possibility that there could actually be a restraining factor, a brake (however weak), on the Borg-like expansion of a vast and corrupt Empire — an empire that sends out drones to kill in a cold bloodless orgy of destruction, like mechanized Orcs emanating from Mordor. On the off chance that we might restrain this monster, lifting yourself out of your ennui is well worth the effort.

Please sign the White House petition in support of Chuck Hagel: http://wh.gov/nW2c
TomB says:

December 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Michael Dougherty wrote:

“How has Hagel distinguished himself in the cause of a realistic foreign policy, beyond attending a few meetings for the Committee for the Republic and giving a speech in 2006?”

While hardly needed, to expand on all the right things he’s said and done that have been quoted by people like Rubin and Kristol, I’ll just re-print (sans citations) verbatim the relevant Wikipedia entry as regards the man:

======

On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes”. In November 2005, Hagel defended his criticism of the Iraq war stating “To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic.” In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the Republican Party, and the PATRIOT Act, Hagel stated “I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn’t take an oath of office to my party or my president.”

In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove saying “I didn’t like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it’s the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context.” In July 2006, Hagel criticized the Bush administration on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue saying “The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop.” He also said “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic,… But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships.” Following heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm election, Hagel penned an editorial in the Washington Post highly critical of military strategies both employed and proposed for Iraq. He wrote that “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq,” and called for a “phased troop withdrawal”.

In January 2007, Hagel openly criticized President Bush’s plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. He called it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” Together with Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin he proposed a non-binding resolution to the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which rejected Bush’s policy as “not in the national interest” in a 12-9 vote. After an April 2007 visit to Iraq with U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), Hagel stated his belief that the occupation of Iraq should not continue indefinitely and expressed his intention to cooperate with Senate Democrats in voting for a bill that would set a timeline to get out of Iraq.

In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration “the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus—almost every area” of any presidency in the last forty years.

========

Now you tell *me,* Michael, who—even amongst *Democrats*—who has been more fearless, plain-spoken and as just plain right on these issues?

I think you are just massively forgetting the times, Mike. That is, the times under Bush, when saying even 1/2 of what Hagel said was clearly unthinkable for 99.99% of congresspeople.

And we are right now in the middle of yet another ginned-up campaign to get us involved in yet another war in the Middle East, by the same characters using the same techniques that they used to so damage us already.

If not supporting Hagel for his past forthrightness and independent-mindedness then, what about supporting him just simply for being *right* about things back then?

And if not supporting him for that, then who, Michael? You’re not only forgetting the times, it seems to me, you haven’t yet ventured into thinking of alternatives, and it isn’t a perfect world.

Cheers,
Neal Murray says:

December 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Justin is right. Chuck Hagel is a professor at Georgetown and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations who has been recognized for valor in Vietnam. Hes not a David Duke or Kevin Mcdonald character or whatever, easily located to the margins. Bret Stephens and Jennifer Rubin are not, last I checked, fifty feet tall. The hill on which Michael fears to die is occupied by Aaron David Miller and James Fallows and Richard Wright and Dana Milbank and Peter Beinart and John Judis and Steve Clemons and Richard Armitage, quite in addition to the dwindling band of Realists represented by Walt and Scowcroft. For gods sakes, on what better terms does one prefer to beat back the neo-conservative horde, if not these? Draw your blade, MBD, or at least your beard.
San Stefano says:

December 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm

Michael is suffering from surfeit of daintiness. Heed John 9:22 and man up, brother!
James C says:

December 22, 2012 at 3:43 pm

I respectfully disagree. As a Nebraskan (who voted for Bob Kerrey over Deb Fischer), I can tell you that Chuck Hagel is what the GOP needs more than ever. As I see it, he would be a win-win for both the Republicans and the Obama administration because he offers what has sorely been missing from the beltway: pragmatism. I’ve started flipping through his book since talks of his nomination have surfaced and its a great read. It will leave you with more patriotic emotion than a Springsteen concert.
Bob Mitchell says:

December 22, 2012 at 5:14 pm

Of course it has to be about breaking the influence of “foreign” lobbyists. Otherwise, people might start to ask “wait didn’t Hagel vote for the war and the Patriot Act.” Basically Hagel is being lauded by this site because in 2005 after two years of a war, a war which Hagel voted for, Hagel flip flopped and began criticizing that war. He then falsely predicted the surge would be a disaster. That is what TAC wants to reward with a promotion.
Jim Houghton says:

December 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm

One suspects that Hegel has indeed learned from his mistakes. Sad faces and “grave concerns” are a lot more than you’ll ever hear from Bush, Cheney, Rummy or even Rice.

And thank Jebus he HASN’T written a book, it would just provide gunpowder for the folks who want to blow him up.
dbriz says:

December 22, 2012 at 5:26 pm

I’m often reminded of the late, little lamented Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell who said to reporters, “…watch what we do, not what we say…”.

In the case of Chuck Hagel the rhetoric has often been pretty good and yet on two very crucial issues, i.e. the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act, he voted FOR.

Matter of fact, in 2008 Americans elected a Senator from Illinois whose rhetoric on these issues was pretty good. Need we go there?

Now we must ask ourselves, what are the chances as SecDef, he might act as a break on the martial instincts of the Obama Administration? And, would he even adopt the type of rhetoric he is receiving so much praise for once confirmed?

What are his current views on the Mideast in general, Syria in particular?

What are his views on contracting wars out to the CIA/military branch?

Would Obama nominate someone who might become a “loose cannon”? Hardly seems likely.

Hagel, during or after confirmation hearings is most unlikely to take war with Iran “off the table”.

Realistically, war with Iran is more in the hands of JCOS. They have been rumored to want no part of it. We can only wish it were so. I would be more concerned about Obama “general shopping” than who is the new SecDef.

But that’s just me.

So, what to do?

I too am quite lukewarm about Hagel. He is at best LOTE.

I suppose signing a petition that could send a message to the neocons and Likudniks would feel good, but I suspect it would amount to little more than that in the final analysis.
James Canning says:

December 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm

TomB – - Bravo. Hagel has advocated for relations between Iran and the US, and for direct air connection between New York and Tehran.

Total idiocy on the part of the US not to have normal relations with Iran, as in operating an embassy in Tehran.
Thomas O. Meehan says:

December 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm

The good thing about being a journalist is that you never have to “Go to the wall,” at all. There is no firing squad waiting for any of us. But your point is taken.

It’s a curious reflection on our times that the Secretary of Defense should be viewed as a crucial foreign policy position at all. Yes, the Secretary has always been part of the mix, but only in situations where conflict is likely. So the Neocons obviously see conflict as both likely and advantageous to them.

Still, the Secretary does not formulate foreign policy. What he does is oversee our armed might. To do so, he must report his honest assessments to the President. It seems to me that the Neocons are against Hagel precisely because he would give such honest assessments and advice to Obama. To put it plainly, they want a man who will lie to the President in the service of Israeli. When an American Secretary of Defense advises the President with an eye to satifying the interests of another nation, American troops die.

FOX just had a young Congressman-elect from Arizona named Cotton speaking out against Hegel. He Isn’t even in Congress but he knew which way to jump. National Review actually ran an anti-Hagel hit piece by that famous conservative Allan Dershowitz. Follow the money. If the price of having Conservative Inc. is subservience to any foreign power, it’s time to close up shop.
TomB says:

December 24, 2012 at 7:02 am

I just want to write further to make amends for the snarky tone of my first post here towards Michael as he—and others here as well—do bring up the entirely relevant point that while Hagel’s talk is one thing, his voting record is not as commendable by far. (Even if his talk came afterwards and can be seen as showing acquired wisdom at least.)

And I’d go even further in their direction in terms of not seeing Hagel as any ultimate savior given that in his talk, while lots of it has been very good on the Middle East, he still spouts what I see as the same very bad crap about the U.S. needing to “lead” or etc. in the Israeli/Palestinian talks and get the parties to peace.

Regardless of all else he’s said good this to me is still a very grave strike against Hagel as I don’t think we have a whit of interest in that conflict other than to stay the hell out of it and be absolutely neutral, subsidizing neither.

I.e., he just thinks he can play the same game but is going to slip the same consequences.

Thus I don’t want to be read as saying I think Hagel represents any Second Coming, and the strength of my prior expressed feelings is just that … of all reasonably *possible* SecDef nominees Hagel it seems to me comes at least *closest* to reflecting what I endorse and what I think AmCon readers endorse.

And thus, given what I at least see as the rarity of others in the political world coming anywhere *close* to what I sense the AmCon has stood for, not standing strong for Hagel struck me as just … perverse.

Taking a step back however to the longer view I was wrong to diss Michael’s viewpoint as strongly (and rudely) as I did given that everyone among us is sometimes in that “longer view” mode and sees that what so excites us today so often turns meaningless tomorrow, and there’s nothing invalid in that for sure.

Some of my initial reaction too I think just comes out of frustration with those I ought not be frustrated with such as Dougherty: I see these neo-cons running their very tight, disciplined, focused campaigns and then see the opposition to same reacting in some less cold-eyed way and it can make you want to throw your hands up.

One shouldn’t do so with one’s friends and allies though, unless you want to make the neo-cons happy, so all I’ll say is … c’mon Michael and others, let’s at least be strong in giving Hagel two cheers at least given the alternatives.