The meaning of Hagel: His views show where Obama wants to go

By Charles Krauthammer


“This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

— Barack Obama

to Dmitry Medvedev,
March 26, 2012


The puzzle of the Chuck Hagel nomination for defense secretary is that you normally choose someone of the other party for your Cabinet to indicate a move to the center, but, as The Post’s editorial board pointed out, Hagel’s foreign policy views are to the left of Barack Obama’s, let alone the GOP’s. Indeed, they are at the fringe of the entire Senate.

So what’s going on? Message-sending. Obama won reelection. He no longer has to trim, to appear more moderate than his true instincts. He has the “flexibility” to be authentically Obama.

Hence the Hagel choice: Under the guise of centrist bipartisanship, it allows the president to leave the constrained first-term Obama behind and follow his natural Hagel-like foreign policy inclinations. On three pressing issues, in particular:

(1) Military Spending

Current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in August 2011 that the scheduled automatic $600 billion defense cuts (”sequestration”) would result in “hollowing out the force,” which would be “devastating.” And he strongly hinted that he might resign rather than enact them.

Asked about Panetta’s remarks, Hagel called the Pentagon “bloated” and needing “to be pared down.” Just the man you’d want to carry out a U.S. disarmament that will shrink America to what Obama thinks is its proper size on the world stage; i.e., smaller. The overweening superpower that Obama promiscuously chided in his global we-have-sinned tour is poised for reduction, not only to fund the bulging welfare state — like Europe’s postwar choice of social spending over international relevance — but to recalibrate America’s proper role in the world.

(2) Israel

The issue is not Hagel’s alleged hostility but his public pronouncements. His refusal to make moral distinctions, for example. At the height of the second intifada, a relentless campaign of indiscriminate massacre of Israelis, Hagel found innocence abounding: “Both Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a war not of their making.”

This pass at evenhandedness is nothing but pernicious blindness. Just last month, Yasser Arafat’s widow admitted on Dubai TV what everyone has long known — that Arafat deliberately launched the intifada after the collapse of the Camp David peace talks in July 2000. He told his wife to stay in the safety of Paris. Why, she asked? Because I’m going to start an intifada.

In July 2002, with the terror still raging, Hagel offered further exquisite evenhandedness: “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.” Good God. Exactly two years earlier Israel had proposed an astonishingly generous peace that offered Arafat a Palestinian state — and half of Jerusalem, a previously unimaginable Israeli concession. Arafat said no, made no counteroffer, walked away and started his terror war. Did no one tell Hagel?

(3) Iran

Hagel doesn’t just oppose military action, a problematic option with serious arguments on both sides. He actually opposed any unilateral sanctions. You can’t get more out of the mainstream than that.

He believes in diplomacy instead, as if talk alone will deter the mullahs. He even voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization at a time when they were supplying and supporting attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most tellingly, he has indicated that he is prepared to contain a nuclear Iran, a position diametrically opposed to Obama’s first-term, ostensibly unalterable opposition to containment. What message do you think this sends the mullahs?

And that’s the point. Hagel himself doesn’t matter. He won’t make foreign policy. Obama will run it out of the White House even more tightly than he did in the first term. Hagel’s importance is the message his nomination sends about where Obama wants to go. The lessons are being duly drawn. Iran’s official media have already cheered the choice of what they call this “anti-Israel” nominee. And they fully understand what his nomination signals regarding administration resolve about stopping them from going nuclear.

The rest of the world can see coming the Pentagon downsizing — and the inevitable, commensurate decline of U.S. power. Pacific Rim countries will have to rethink reliance on the counterbalance of the U.S. Navy and consider acquiescence to Chinese regional hegemony. Arab countries will understand that the current rapid decline of post-Kissinger U.S. dominance in the region is not cyclical but intended to become permanent.

Hagel is a man of no independent stature. He’s no George Marshall or Henry Kissinger. A fringe senator who left no trace behind, Hagel matters only because of what his nomination says about Obama.

However the Senate votes on confirmation, the signal has already been sent. Before Election Day, Obama could only whisper it to his friend Dmitry. Now, with Hagel, he’s told the world.

For once we agree...anything Krauthammer writes is indeed idiocy.

Fish on...

Todd

Krauthammer is a clown!

Hagel was wounded twice in Vietnam. He volunteered to go to Nam, his original assmt was in Europe. He went to college on the GI Bill and in the 80's started his own cell phone company and he did make millions. At the same time he was running the cell phone company he was also President of the USO and mostly responsible for bringing it out of near bankruptcy. When he ran for the Senate he said he would only serve two terms and that is what he did.

The Republican negative response just shows how far out of touch they really are.

I concur odd. You are an expert on idiocy. Hands on experience, ne.

The fact that there are some Republicans who like him, and some who don't, and some Democrats who like him, and some who don't, ought to be pretty good evidence that he's probably pretty good.

The fact that Illy and Krauthammer don't like him ought to be even stronger evidence that he's probably fuckin perfect for the job.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's somebody that, thinks Hagel is a good choice. Ex-ambassador Crocker is a 'been there done that" person unlike the talking head that gets paid for his opinion. Read this if you want a point of view of someone that knows Hagel: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/11/169110294/ex-ambassador-crocker-supports-hagels-nomination

Also...anyone who has ever entertained a thought that Rumsfeld was anything but an unmitigated disaster as SecDef should not even be allowed to comment on the weather, much less participate in grown up conversations about actual issues.

Fish on...

Todd

So your saying compared to Rumsfeld he's probably got the job?

Hard to disagree that the Pentagon budget is bloated and needs reforming. I totally agree that the US treats Israel far too well, but then I'm radical and would arm both Israel and the Arabs to the teeth in hopes they would do the world a favor and blow each other off the planet. I disagree with Hagel on allowing Iran to go nuke. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Hah, after Rummy, the bar for Def. Sec. qualifications was laid on the ground.

No SHEET Sherlock....go back to the bottle...loser.

I wonder, is Farsi an elective in middle school?

Well, if you want to learn Farsi, my sister in law is fluent & she lives in your area. She's a Vet and a patient person. She'd probably want to be certain it's ok with your parents.

You are too kind. Thank her for her service for me.