Breaking: WH Officials Say President Obama Has Asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Step Down

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Times

@BreakingNews: Senior White House officials say President Obama has asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to step down - @nytimes http://t.co/pXYCQYs6TR/s/TYM0

Hagel Said to Be Stepping Down as Defense Chief Under Pressure

By HELENE COOPER
NOVEMBER 24, 2014

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down under pressure, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and a beleaguered national security team that has struggled to stay ahead of an onslaught of global crises.

The president, who is expected to announce Mr. Hagel’s resignation in a Rose Garden appearance on Monday, made the decision to ask his defense secretary — the sole Republican on his national security team — to step down last Friday after a series of meetings over the past two weeks, senior administration officials said.

The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.

But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that he initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

Read more: Link to source

[DetlefK]

1. Up next: Obama nominates socialist liberal who is too soft for the job and hates America.

[former9thward]

36. No, he wants somebody who is on board with an Iraq re-invasion.

[yurbud]

40. yep. to the RIGHT of Hagel. Lieberman available?

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. Mitch McConnel offered a clue:

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Chuck Hagel's replacement: 'It is imperative that the next Secretary of Defense possess a sharp grasp of strategy' -

breaking News tweet.

So he is saying Hagel did not possess a grasp of strategy?

Also sounds as if their are future plans for ...strategy...in the works.

[TheNutcracker]

53. It was Hagel who complained Obama has no strategy....to McCain

[dixiegrrrrl]

61. oh,,I missed that.

So the Republican Sec. of defense complained about his Commander in Chief, to a Senator who wants, or at least wanted, to be the next Pres.
Guess Hagel never learned about McArthur.

[deurbano]

74. And his "old friend" McCain trashed his during the confirmation process

and didn't vote for him!

[Therational1]

81. What's wrong with a liberal?

I don't think you understand liberals.

If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." President J.F.K.

[DetlefK]

95. Liberals eat babies and want us to gay-marry immigrants.

I honestly thought that I would get away with not using the sarcasm-tag...

[DeSwiss]

100. But still not bad.

- You got someone to signup and make their 1st post!

[heaven05]

2. nice explanation

no telling what poison hagel was spilling onto DOD people and orders.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Just heard Joe Madison mention this on his show.

Trying to have a drama-free holiday but alas.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Bring back Rummy

It will send a message to Republicans that we're people they can do business with.

Regards,

TWM

[Enthusiast]

11. At least he would promote a target rich environment.

You know............

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Yay! We want Rummy! He's way more efficient!

The only Secretary of Defense who asks and answers his own questions!

[Jackpine Radical]

79. Nah.

Dulles Dynasty or bust!

[Octafish]

5. Some SecDefs are more qualified than others when it comes to lying America into war. Bring back...

He'll even thank the dead and wounded for their service.

[appalachiablue]

19. Good one for Rummy the sociopath, lord of Mt. Misery the eastern MD place where Fred. Douglass lived

[BlueEye]

6. The correlation between this news and the ISIS/Syria situation is not surprising.

As the United States shifts back towards active military operations in the ME, a more "offensively oriented" SecDef is apparently warranted.

But I am also fearful that there might be some relationship between Hagel's departure and the ongoing negotiations with Iran over the nukes. The Israeli defense lobby has been making more noise in the last couple weeks over fears that Iran and the West might strike a deal that doesn't require full blown transparency regarding their nuclear program. It's no secret that Hagel was more pro-diplomacy. The Powers That Be may want a hardliner in his role.

[karynnj]

46. In that case, wouldn't the target have been John Kerry, not Hagel

Kerry was involved in opening the channel in Oman before he was SoS and he has been Obama's lead on the negotiations. In addition, the same RW Likud apologists have been extremely angry that Kerry has actually not toed the lines set by Netanyahu on the Palestinian/Israeli mess.

I also don't see the shift in the administration's policy that you speak of -- they are still following what Obama laid out last June. Obama has - to this point - rejected the US militarily acting against Syria itself --- which is what countries like Turkey, the Gulf States, and Saudia Arabia have long argued for. It is not just those countries - but US powers like the NYT and the WP and the previous Secretary of State that have argued for that.

I suspect that the reason might be as simple as burn out on the part of Hagel. Remember when the NYT floated the issue of problems in the National Security team, the administration completely and strongly backed John Kerry, but there was not a whole lot said about Hagel. (Not to mention, the China/US pact was essentially done - waiting for the China trip to be announced. Kerry had a key role in what will likely be the most significant foreign policy accomplishment of Obama's Presidency - especially if, as Kerry long spoke of, if their work on this major issue facilitates working on other problems.)

[BlueEye]

90. Kerry is far too well established in both the adminstration and...

well, the "establishment" to be vulnerable to the designs of the Likud apologists. I agree completely that Kerry is on their shit list for what most of us agree were rational diplomatic overtures. But you cannot discount the Right's unique dislike for Hagel from Day One. They pounced on his prior statements on Iran and perceived anti-Semetic positions. The Israel lobby is powerful in DC in both the Republican and Democratic parties, and I doubt the anti-Hagel bias ever let up behind the scenes.

Hagel politically alienated himself from the right and left to some extent (remember the "aggressively gay" remarks?), so he had few allies. Once the President grew impatient, Hagel was done.

Regarding the shift... Yes, it's happened. Not as dramatic as neocons would like, but it's there. How many airstrikes in Iraq or Syria were being conducted one year ago? And today? There can be no doubt, the United States has tried to put ISIS on defense after their stunning victories last summer. Thus, by definition, the Obama Administration has adopted an offensive stance. I never said the target was the Assad regime, so perhaps not *as* offensive as the Saudis and various American players (nice way to drag Hillary into this, btw) have argued for, but it is there.

To be clear, I don't entirely disagree with your simplified theory. Hagel has been on the rocks with the Administration for months. But to write this off entirely as a case of Cabinet member burn out ignores the wider picture and the powerful forces at play in any Presidency or DoD.

[Turbineguy]

7. Since he will stay until the Senate confirms a replacement,

it's one of Obama's little jokes. Republicans are weak on defense.

[bigdarryl]

8. He needs to fire Dempsey or lock his fucking hells

This General is inching to put large number of troops back in Iraq

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Colin Powell reportedly enroute to White House.

Claims the whole world is hiding WMD's.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

20. Great line, just makes me sad.

I recall either a Time or Newsweek cover story about Powell early in his tenure, in which an incident where he teed off in front of staffers about the lies coming out of the administration about yellow cake (I believe it was yellow cake).

At some point, he decided being a war criminal was for him and got on the crazy train. Should be in prison now.

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. Agreed.

He really went over the edge.

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Be careful not to idealize Powell too much

He seems to have a pattern of lying and covering up that goes all the way back to the My Lai massacre.
Sad but true.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

62. I did have "war criminal" in my post n/t

[24601]

104. You know the Secretary of State, unlike the Secretary of Defense, is not in the chain of command for

military forces. As best, SecState has indirect Operational Control over military assigned to country teams.

Presidents on the other hand, direct military operations as well as CIA ops conducted pursuant to Presidential findings.

In your zeal to root out candidates, are you giving a pass to any Presidents that ordered pre-trial drone strikes on US Citizens? Is your definition of a war criminal fact-based or does it depend instead on partisan ideology?

[HoosierCowboy]

10. The only Republican...

...in Government that's been shot at in an actual war, as opposed to being in the Texas Air Guard. You'll be missed Chuck. Run for President and straighten out your party.

[hughee99]

55. Congrats to the people of Arizona on finally getting rid of McCain.

I hadn't heard he retired.

[Feral Child]

12. Good decision,

obvious fifth columnist.

[Laurian]

13. Damn....I always felt that as a Vietnam vet, Hagel

would be hesitant to expand military action. My fear is that he opposed such an expansion and lost the debate with the warmongers. Hope I'm wrong, but the recent rumblings about combat troops to fight ISIS pisses me off. Please! Don't let us go there, again!

[sulphurdunn]

23. I think you are correct

[grasswire]

60. I agree with you.

The hawks have won and are taking us back.

[rhett o rick]

14. I wonder what's really going on here. " “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of

focus." Really?

[belzabubba333]

31. it means were giing back in

[JDPriestly]

94. Maybe a focus on dealing with armed and dangerous Muslim radicals rather than a focus

on regime change in Syria? Or maybe a focus both on dealing with the Muslim radicals and on regime change in Syria?

I've wondered since the Benghazi affair to what extent we were involved in Syria. And now some of the Syrian rebels have formed ISIS. Could there be some link to the confusion about our choice of friends in Syria and this "resignation"?

I'm just musing on this. The facts are murky, and I don't have sufficient facts to support what is really just a theory of mine.

And then, Afghanistan is a mess. That war was not well executed. If you are going to go into a country and use military force to achieve a goal, that goal had better be pretty clear, and the means you use to achieve it needs to be even clearer give or take new developments.

We wanted to wage war while still pretending to do good in Afghanistan. The goal was uncleary. Therefore the methods were inefficient and unsuccessful.

You either fight a war against an enemy or you help your friends. But you can't fight a war unless you can identify your enemy and wait until after you win to try to help the friends that are left.

[Historic NY]

15. You can bet it will be someone with recent military experience....

[Robbins]

16. Translation

Hagel Isn't hawkish enough.

[sulphurdunn]

24. Exactly

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Correct!

Hagel's one of the few Republicans that Democrats can tolerate.
And that makes him intolerable to Republicans.

[Schema Thing]

17. a way to force congress into working w POTUS on Nat Sec?

the confirmation process should be interesting.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. I'm only surprised to the extent that this didn't happen 2 weeks ago

I'd expected a cabinet shakeup after the midterm debacle.

I'm thinking a) Petraeus is brought back in, b) Wes Clark, c) (remembering that he basically supported the President in both campaigns) Colin Powell. I'm often wrong, however. (note: I'm not saying that these are who I'd pick; I think this is who the Pres will bring in).

[Arkana]

45. Petraeus is radioactive after the Broadwell thing.

Wes Clark is never going to hold another government job because his base of support pretty much exists among a handful of liberals who love him because he opposed the Iraq invasion, and Colin Powell's ties to the Iraq war make him a non-starter.

Come on, guys. Really? Literally none of those people will be it. It'll be someone who already has an FP-related job in the administration.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

69. I disagree. Petraeus has sat out long enough over the Broadwell thing

...and Congress won't confirm a foreign policy wonk. That is a non-starter.

It doesn't matter what liberals think of this nominee. It matters who can be approved by Congress who will inspire confidence that they can direct a war. Petraeus and Powell fit that description.

[JDPriestly]

96. It won't be Petraeus. Broadwell was an excuse not the reason for Petraeus's exit.

That is my opinion.

Syria policy is in my opinion the big problem.

And on top of that, we need to be more honest about war.

You fight a war to win. You don't fight a war to make friends.

After you have won the war, you can make friends. But as long as you are fighting a war you concentrate on winning the war, not on developing the country you are fighting.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

War is serious business. Don't go fighting wars here and there unless you are really going to go in to win.

We have been fighting wars for reasons that are not related to the purpose of war. War is a serious business. We should not have gone into Iraq. We should wait to fight in places like Syria until the local issues are settled and clear enough for us to take a side and know who we want to support.

Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex because he knew that the complex wants to develop weapons and war material for reasons other than winning wars. That complex thrives on lost wars. It would never admit it, but it does. That is a huge problem for our country.

If you fight a war, fight to win. No holds barred. But don't fight wars over things that really can be resolved through other means. ISIS has no air support. We should be able to end their progress more easily than we are.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

99. I agree with everything you say after "That is my opinion"

Petraeus executed the surge. He was a huge improvement militarily over Franks and Sanchez. One thing we now know in American politics -- one can rise from the ashes of a sex scandal. Republicans would likely welcome him to the role, and he brings the best real-world experience in the region.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/17/general-principles

Nowadays, most general officers, at least most American ones, do not see combat. They don’t fire their weapons, and they don’t get killed; for the most part, they don’t even smoke. In wars without front lines, American generals tend to stay inside fortified bases, where they plan missions and brief political leaders via secure video teleconferences. Their credentials are measured as much by their graduate degrees as by the medals on their dress uniforms. They are, for the most part, deeply conventional men, who rose to the top of the military hierarchy by following orders and suppressing subversive thoughts.

In recent years, the most esteemed officer in America—the very model of the modern general—was David Petraeus, whose public image combined the theorizing of the new school with a patina of old-fashioned toughness and rectitude. Before a sex scandal forced him to step down as the director of the C.I.A., a few weeks ago, he was widely regarded by politicians and journalists as a brilliant thinker and leader, the man who saved America in Iraq and might work a similar miracle in Afghanistan. Roger Ailes suggested, perhaps less than half in jest, that Petraeus run for President. Now many of the same people are calling into question not just his ethics but his basic ideas and achievements. History often forgives military leaders for small scandals, if they are successful enough. Eisenhower’s long-alleged affair with Kay Summersby has not much tarnished his reputation as an officer; even Hood, whose late campaigns were disastrous, is remembered as a paragon of bravery, if not of good planning. Will Petraeus be thought of, in time, as a hero guilty of no more than a distracting foible? Or as the general most responsible for two disastrous wars?

In Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the criticism has centered on the political leaders—Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld—who ordered the invasions and grossly mismanaged the occupations that followed. Less criticism has focussed on the soldiers and the generals who led them. This is understandable: the military didn’t start these wars, and the relatively small number of Americans who fought in them—after a decade, less than one per cent of the population—bore the burden for the rest of the country. In all those “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and campaign applause lines, it has not been difficult to discern a sense of collective guilt.

But, by almost every measure, the American soldiers and marines who went into Iraq and Afghanistan were grossly unprepared for their missions, and the officers who led them were often negligent. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, many American military units travelled to the National Training Center, a sprawling patch of California desert. There they took part in enormous mock tank battles against a phony enemy, called the Kraznovians, that was meant to stand in for the Iraqi Army but had in fact been modelled on the Soviet military in an imaginary invasion of Western Europe. When the real invasion got under way, in March, 2003, American soldiers came under attack from a hidden enemy that was wearing no uniform at all. There had been plenty of warnings that an anti-American insurgency might spring up, and none were heeded. The generals were unprepared.

How the Army got to such a point is the subject of Thomas Ricks’s “The Generals,’’ a series of vivid biographical sketches of American commanders from the Second World War to Afghanistan. In Ricks’s view, their quality, with a few exceptions, has steadily declined. His poster boy for the terrible early period of the Iraq war is Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, whom he accurately portrays as a decent man but an incompetent commander. Sanchez’s worst decision was signing off on harsh interrogations of Iraqi detainees—which, when the photographs leaked from Abu Ghraib, resulted in one of the war’s signal disasters. But his real sin was neglect. Stupefied as the insurgency spread around him, and paralyzed by Washington’s insistence that everything was under control (for months, Rumsfeld forbade American officers to use the word “insurgency”), Sanchez effectively delegated the strategy for the war to the lower-ranking generals beneath him.

I absolutely agree that war is a serious business and we fight to win. If it were up to me, we'd disengage militarily from the Middle East -- including Egypt and Israel. Our involvement there is more trouble than it's worth at every level. However, I'm a realist. Petraeus was the last highly successful General in the region, and he has intel experience. I think you could get him through the incoming congress with a minimal fight.

[JDPriestly]

105. Iraq and Afghanistan went badly, and Petraeus' military strategies are partly to blame.

War is not about making friends. It's about winning. Traditionally it is about winning the ability to govern and about winning territory, physical territory.

War by American is not what is appropriate in the Middle East. We cannot solve their tribal or social or economic or religious conflicts or problems through war. We don't want to "own" their land. We just want their land and to make sure their religious aggression does not harm us.

I think that being clear about your goals makes you a better strategist. The problem for our military is that the politicians do not set clear goals. It is not the job of the military to set any goal other than to win territory, to win power.

Trying to wage a war while winning hearts and minds has not worked well. That is because the goals of war and the goals of winning friends are at odds with each other.

[NorthCarolina]

21. Who is next up from the GOP Rank and File? McCain? nt

[DustyJoe]

25. Asked ?

I seriously doubt that anyone was 'asked' to resign.
I can just imagine the tone when he was told to get the hell out.

[ImaPolitico]

48. POTUS and Hagel have been in talks since October.

POTUS and Hagel have been in conversations since last October.
Hagel's job was to draw down the war, that's why he was nominated, but we know all too we'll that did not happen. Something about a letter Hagel wrote to Rice re: ISIL.

More news coming in.

[Martak Sarno]

26. To restore the Senate to the Democrats?

If Obama really wanted to play the new 21st century politics from a Democratic aspect, he could nominate some Republican Senators for DoD, Health, Education, etc. then watch the GOP heads explode and excuses made as they realize confirming those Senators might change the balance of power in the Senate. But he'd have to do it for Republican Senators with Democratic State Governors who could appoint interim Democratic Senators.

Then when the GOP blocks his nominations, explain to the people the Republicans don't want to work with him.

Might be worth the price of popcorn!

Just a thought.

[exboyfil]

33. Grassley for Sec of Agriculture

He can do a lot less damage there than as head of the judiciary committee. Don't see him taking it though.

[INdemo]

28. Well here comes another book

And another subject for the Tea Baggers to use for their rhetoric subject of Obama bashing

[exboyfil]

29. Max Cleland?

[A Round Tuit]

35. Max Cleland?

He'd never get confirmed..

He has been attacked for his war record, or lack thereof, from both the left and the right. Poor guy can't win for losing.

It is my opinion that he is weary of it all and would be extremely reluctant to open that can of worms again.

[deurbano]

34. These are names mentioned for possible replacement:

<<Even before the announcement of Mr. Hagel’s removal, Obama officials were speculating on his possible replacement. At the top of the list are Michèle A. Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense; Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former officer with the Army’s 82nd Airborne; and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense.>>

[IDemo]

49. Jack Reed not interested in defense secretary position

Which means exactly nothing if he gets the call anyway..

http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20141124-u.s.-sen.-jack-reed-not-interested-in-defense-secretary-position.ece

[karynnj]

77. Given Obama will be president for just 2 more years, Reed would be trading

a position in the Senate, he can likely have for life, and where he already has earned a lot of seniority that could place him as Chair of Armed Services when the Democrats regain the Senate. (He will be the ranking member) for a position he would have for less than 2 years. (I do assume he would be easily confirmed)

[Algernon Moncrieff]

70. Of those three, Ashton Carter would be the most likely

He was a senior partner at Global Technology Partners, and he is a cyber-warfare guy. That said, a lot of what he's done seems to be nuts-and-bolts infrastructure kind of stuff. Can he give direction to a seemingly directionless Middle East strategy? Can he make the case for total withdrawal?

[PatrynXX]

37. I first heard this

I figured cool Chuck stuck to his principles , really don't see a problem with this

[lunasun]

65. +1 !! exactly

[libodem]

38. hmmm?

The confirmation of the next one will never happen on Boner and McYertal 's watch. The nation will have to cripple along with an acting appointment for the next two years.

Count on it.


I wonder who Hagel screwed?

[jakeXT]

39. Is UBER military hiring ?

Uber Has Formed a Military Advisory Board to Recruit Vet Drivers

Uber's plan to turn current and former military members and their families into UberX drivers took a big leap forward with the creation of the UberMILITARY Advisory board announced on Wednesday. The new board will be chaired by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and includes high-ranking retired members from every branch of the military except the Coast Guard. Uber has promised to sign up 50,000 drivers connected to the military in the next year and a half, and hopes that the advisory board will help them reach that goal.

http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/11/05/uber-forms-military-advisory-board-recruit-vet-drivers/

[deurbano]

76. Lincoln branch?

[jalan48]

41. Hillary!

That will give her more gravitas for 2016.

[onehandle]

51. If she's running, she will likely announce within 90 days.

So, no.

[jalan48]

59. You are correct.

[ucrdem]

42. per NPR, Hagel wanted to take a harder line against Assad in Syria:

Tom says Hagel disagreed with the White House because he wanted to take a harder line against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria. But the White House was resistant to that kind of strategy.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/24/366310360/defense-secretary-hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down

[cosmicone]

43. Good decision

We need someone who is committed to complete destruction of ISIS with no mercy.

[Hissyspit]

50. Yeah, war as the solution in the Middle East.

What could go wrong?

[BeanMusical]

85. +1

[AngryDem001]

83. Some other hoodlums will just replace ISIS.

[Richardo]

47. I nominate Wesley Clark

[Shemp Howard]

56. Wesley Clark almost started WW III.

Clark is reckless. During the Kosovo conflict, he ordered NATO troops to attack a detachment of armed Russian soldiers. Fortunately the NATO ground commander, a British general, refused to carry out Clark's insane order.

See "Pristina International Airport incident" at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[Algernon Moncrieff]

72. That came nowhere near starting WWIII

...and the Russia of the mid-late 90s was in no position to go to war with anyone.

[Shemp Howard]

75. The on-scene British general begs to differ.

From Wikipedia:

General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blunt leading the British troops questioned this order and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force. Jackson refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you".

-------

Was Gen. Jackson overreacting here? Maybe. But do you think Russia would have just sat back and done nothing if Russian troops were deliberately attacked?

Provocations (like the one Clark so casually ordered) often escalate. That's how WW I started. Why take that risk?

Clark has no business being in any position where a cool head is needed.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

82. I think Russia would have protested loudly and cut of natural gas to Western Europe

The Russia of that era was in no position to start any kind of major war, save nuclear.

Why take the risk? Because the Russian troops supported the Serbs who were slaughtering the Kosovar Albanians. Clark was absolutely right, and the Brit had a major case of weak knees.

[Shemp Howard]

87. The Russians were not shooting at anyone.

All the Russians were doing was occupying an airport. They weren't killing anyone. And they were no threat, except perhaps to Clark's ego. Certainly, the Russians were pro-Serb, but, again, they weren't killing anyone.

And further events showed that the British were correct to leave them alone, as the Russians caused no trouble there.

No more "preventative" wars, please. No more needless killing, please.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

91. That war was neither needless nor preventative

We went into Serbia to stop a genocide.

[Shemp Howard]

103. Sorry...I wasn't clear.

I didn't mean the Serbian intervention was needless. I meant any attack on the Russians was needless.

[Richardo]

78. yeah.

[TheNutcracker]

52. Hagel complained to McCain there is no strategy. Though he was there to withdraw from war

it appears it's getting ramped up. Did Obama do this because he complained to McCain?
I wonder.

[deurbano]

67. The McCain who didn't vote for Hagel's confirmation, and said:

“Nothing in Senator Hagel’s background indicates that he would effectively manage the Department of Defense.”


Politicians are a weird breed. Why the hell would Hagel ever complain to a snake like that after the guy ripped him apart?

[TheNutcracker]

54. Wes Clark?

How about a freakin democrat???

[exboyfil]

57. Bill Clinton?

[Dopers_Greed]

58. My prediction...

He's going to nominate another Republican, cause, you know, only Republicans know anything about keeping America safe. Dems hate the military and our soldiers, and want to be invaded by ISIS.

Just to be sure:

[TwilightGardener]

63. Bad decision, Obama.

Bad decision. Very disappointed. Hagel looked out for the troops.

[MoonchildCA]

64. "A different kind of focus," huh?

So basically, we need to replace our Defense Secretary, with an Offense Secretary.

[flpoljunkie]

66. Miklazewski's gone from WH and Pentagon both thought he was 'not up to the job' to firing's to cover up Obama's

flailing foreign policy?

Which is it, Miklazewski (NBC's Pentagon correspondent)? Who's putting all this out and what's their motive?

[TwilightGardener]

68. So Hagel's the scapegoat, but not John Kerry? Hagel isn't in charge of foreign policy.

HOW DOES SUSAN RICE STILL HAVE A JOB?

[flpoljunkie]

84. John Kerry has and continues to be deeply engaged in his role as the Secretary of State.

Reportedly, the same cannot be said of Hagel, for whatever reasons. The Defense Secretary certainly has a role to play in foreign policy--making decisions about Afghanistan and how to engage the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

That said, we must respect Secretary Hagel's love and concern for the men and women who are serving and have served our nation--and through some very difficult times.

[TwilightGardener]

86. Hagel worked his ass off, and didn't screw up. I don't know what's going on here, that

he is being made the sacrificial offering, post-election.

[flpoljunkie]

88. Hagel was reportedly not interested in policy. I don't doubt he worked his ass off.

Slate's Fred Kaplan, whom I read and respect, wrote about Hagel today.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/11/chuck_hagel_resigns_as_secretary_of_defense_the_former_senator_wasn_t_as.html

[TwilightGardener]

89. Kaplan is a hack.

I don't think he knows what went on at the Pentagon any more than anyone else. He's just repeating what he heard reported elsewhere.

[flpoljunkie]

93. We will have to agree to disagree.

[OnyxCollie]

71. On deck, another Republican... nt

[grahamhgreen]

73. I recommend Dennis Kucinich. F@ckwar.

[Shemp Howard]

80. That bothers me...

...because I didn't think of Kucinich before you did!

Kucinich:

- Consistently voted against funding the illegal Iraq War
- Tried to have Bush impeached

That's all the qualifications necessary as far as I'm concerned.

[grahamhgreen]

97. :) how bout we try it out way for once.... There's doesn't work!

[Zorra]

98. Obama goes rogue, gives Wall St the finger?

In a perfect world...

[eringer]

92. If I was Barack Obama, I would select Bill Lynn to fill the job

Bill was DepSecDef, OSD Comptroller, and the Director of PA&E. He knows the building, has worked with Obama, and would be confirmed rather easily. His biography:

William J. Lynn III served as the 30th Deputy Secretary of Defense from February 2009 to October 2011.

Mr. Lynn’s career has included extensive public service at various levels within government. Mr. Lynn served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 1997 until 2001 and for four years prior to that he was the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Before entering the Department of Defense in 1993, Mr. Lynn served for six years on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Prior to 1987, he was a senior fellow at the National Defense University and was on the professional staff of the Institute for Defense Analyses. From 1982 to 1985, he served as the executive director of the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Lynn also has experience in the private sector from 2001-2009. He served as senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company. He also served as executive vice president of DFI International, a Washington-based management consulting firm, from 2001 to 2002.

A graduate of Dartmouth College, Mr. Lynn has a law degree from Cornell Law School and a master’s in public affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. His publications include a book, Toward a More Effective Defense, as well as articles in various newspapers and professional journals. He has been recognized for numerous professional and service contributions, including three DoD medals for distinguished public service, the Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and awards from the Army, Navy and Air Force.

[Recursion]

101. Jim Webb would be an interesting choice (nt)

[davidpdx]

102. Given the Republican Senate

He's going to have a hard time getting through a nominee. The Senate is going to scuttle nominees for both the Justice Department and Defense Department.