2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Hagel Matters
by Peter Beinart Jan 7, 2013 4:45 AM ESTIf the former senator is confirmed over Republican objections as Obamas new secretary of defense, it could signal the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy, says Peter Beinart.
If media reports are true, Barack Obama will soon nominate Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense. If so, it may prove the most consequential foreign-policy appointment of his presidency. Because the struggle over Hagel is a struggle over whether Obama can change the terms of foreign-policy debate.
Understanding what that means requires understanding the state of foreign-policy discourse in the two parties today. First, the GOP. Had a Martian descended to earth in January 2003, spent a few days listening to Washington Republicans talk foreign policy, and then returned in January 2013, she would likely conclude that the Iraq War had been a fabulous success. She would conclude that because, as far as I can tell, not a single Republican-aligned Beltway foreign-policy politician or pundit enjoys less prominence than he did a decade ago because he supported the Iraq War, and not a single one enjoys more prominence because he opposed it. From Bill Kristol to Charles Krauthammer to John McCain to John Bolton to Dan Senor, the same people who dominated Republican foreign-policy discourse a decade ago still dominate it today, and they espouse exactly the same view of the world. As for those conservatives who opposed Iraqpeople at places like the Cato Institute and The National Interest who believe that there are clear limits to American military powerour Fox Newswatching, Wall Street Journalreading Martian would have been largely unaware of their existence in 2003 and would remain largely unaware today. Our Martian friend might know somewhat more about Ron Paul than she would have a decade ago. But that familiarity would consist largely of the knowledge that respectable Republicans consider Paul a nut.
As intellectual history, this is astonishing. When Democrats took America into Vietnam, protesters rioted in the streets at the partys 1968 convention. Academics like McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow became such pariahs after serving in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that they could not return to their old universities. Prominent pro-war columnists like Joseph Alsop became laughingstocks. Former Vietnam hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski had to intellectually reinvent themselves to secure government jobs when the Democrats returned to power under Jimmy Carter. The Iraq-era GOP, by contrast, has constructed an intellectual cocoon so hermetically sealed that it has remained uncontaminated by the greatest foreign-policy disaster of the past 30 years. Thats partly the result of the surge, which allowed the Republican foreign-policy establishment to claim, in my view incorrectly, some measure of vindication. Its partly because Iraq required no draft, and thus ordinary Americans never mobilized as dramatically to oppose it, which allowed foreign-policy elites to remain more insulated from shifts in the public mood. Its partly because the institutions where conservative foreign-policy types workplaces like The Weekly Standard, Fox News, and the American Enterprise Institutehave no natural mechanism for reconsidering their view of the world. When Vietnam went south, the intellectual climate at Harvard (where Bundy served as a dean) and The New York Times (which had initially backed the war) changed because Harvard and The New York Times had missions that transcended any particular perspective on American foreign policy. By contrast, hawkish nationalism is so intrinsic to the identity of places like Fox, the Standard, and AEI that abandoning it would threaten their reason for existence.
The final reason for the resiliency of this Republican foreign-policy cocoon is the American media, especially the television media, which take an entirely à la carte view of foreign-policy debates. Rarely is anything a commentator or legislator said yesterday about war with Iraq or Afghanistan deemed relevant to his or her credibility today on the subject of war with Iran. On cable, you shake an Etch a Sketch every time you go on air. Thus, the same Republican commentators and politicians who pushed a hawkish line on Iraq moved seamlessly to pushing a hawkish line on Afghanistan, and once that too became a lost cause, to pushing a hawkish line on Iran and everything else.
-snip-
read more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/why-hagel-matters.html
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Does the quoted statement apply to only Republicans?
Isn't there a Democrat that President Obama could appoint?
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)Video link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/50384358#50384358
Ignatius comes on at 6:56 into the clip.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if "Morning Joe" is a Republican.
I would be surprised if no Democrat combat vet in Washington, DC could be found to "allow us to draw down quicker in Afghanistan." Obama could have started his search with the former Marine Generals who opposed the war in Afghanistan. At least one of them has to be a Democrat.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)lpoljunkie Wed Aug-01-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Hillary's "bad judgment" in voting for the Iraq War Resolution is not a small thing--neither is her
recently repeating Bush's line that "we are safer now." No, Hillary, we are not safer now. Bush's occupation of Iraq has undeniably created more jihadists and made us less safe.
Another thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3274019
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/01/chuck_hagel_for_secretary_of_defense_republicans_wants_to_block_him_from.html
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/50386208
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Hagel can cut the size of the military in the same way that Nixon could go to China.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)supported it. He voted for the invasion. The war went on for 5 years before Chuck cast a single vote against it. Let us at least be honest about that. He bought into the faked intelligence and supported the rush for shock and awe.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the same crime, we can forgive Hagel. It's a good choice. He's a Republican who agrees with the Obama policy that the wars should come to an end. And because he's a Republican with these defense policies, it nullifies the argument that is often made against Democrats regarding defense. In other words, he's a Republican who can sell cutbacks in spending on defense and the military. And because he's also a decorated war hero, it'll be easier to sell that to the American people.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Nancy Waterman
(6,407 posts)Thanks for posting. From the article:
My point is not that because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have proved disastrous, war with Iran would too. Every war is different, and I wrote a whole book about how difficult it is to predict, on the basis of one conflict, how the next will turn out. But a Hagel nomination will ensure that when Obama officials discuss a third Middle Eastern war, the ghosts of Iraq and Afghanistan sit at the table. And while that wont make American military action impossible, it will raise the bar.
What the Republican foreign-policy establishment fears is that with Hagel as secretary of defense, it will be impossible for Obama to minimize the dangers of war with Iran, as George W. Bush minimized the dangers of war with Iraq.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)jenmito
(37,326 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)ancianita
(36,017 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)The neocons got their start in the 70s as Defense Hawks promoting the most expansive and paranoid speculation on Soviet capabilities and intentions, to the extent of arguing that lack of any proof of their claims was just evidence of how skilled the Soviets were at deception.
They've spent their entire careers being wrong, yet still being rising stars. Only George W. Bush has a more impressive record of failing upward.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
Cha
(297,110 posts)working hard for our country.
President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar.. he knows full well how it reads.
Cha
(297,110 posts)want Chuck Hagel anywhere near the Sec of Defense Dept.
Here's another article about Chuck Hagel's fearlessness of standing up for what he believes in..
"Chuck Hagel at the VA"
There are a few examples of stunning courage in Washington. Most are unheralded, this was one. Hagel said, "I serve at the pleasure of the President. If he fires me for supporting a design for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, so be it."
Hagel never got fired. The opponents left, probably dazed at the outcome. Hagel went on to serve President Reagan in other capacities throughout the Presidency, and eventually, Nancy Reagan joined the National Sponsoring Committee for The Wall. A compromise was reached with the opposition, and in March 1982 we hosted an emotional groundbreaking. Hagel was a speaker.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/chuck-hagel-at-the-va/266545/