Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:08 AM Dec 2012

WaPo Editorial: Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary [View all]

By Editorial Board, Published: December 18

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. Hagel’s interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the sequester would lead to “a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” “a Marine Corps that’s below the end strength to support even one major contingency” and “an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk” for the Army.

Mr. Hagel was similarly isolated in his views about Iran during his time in the Senate. He repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior. The Obama administration offered diplomacy but has turned to tough sanctions as the only way to compel Iran to negotiate seriously.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gee, I wasn't initially keen on hagel, maybe I should reconsider still_one Dec 2012 #1
yep, i'm on board now too Enrique Dec 2012 #3
exactly still_one Dec 2012 #4
Add me to that chorus. Chan790 Dec 2012 #18
Well, that itself makes him a good choice. Mass Dec 2012 #2
Any cabinet member is going to carry out the administration's views frazzled Dec 2012 #5
Raining on the parade... truebluegreen Dec 2012 #11
I don't "apologize" for President Obama.. Cha Dec 2012 #31
I'd prefer an actual Democrat. nt truebluegreen Dec 2012 #33
The difference is who is in the inner circle when the decisions are made karynnj Dec 2012 #21
Less hawkish than whom? frazzled Dec 2012 #24
Yes, but you don't intentionally pick someone who isn't on board with your agenda Hippo_Tron Dec 2012 #22
They Make Him Sound Like A Swell Fella for the Job, Sir The Magistrate Dec 2012 #6
Sounds like the right choice to me. One of the 99 Dec 2012 #7
Makes me like Hagel even more. Arkana Dec 2012 #8
If the sequestration defense cuts are likely to have "dire consequences" for our military Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #9
'Cause they thought they could break that agreement. sofa king Dec 2012 #17
that's pretty much what I was thinking too Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #19
Because, to some extent, this crop of Republicans agrees with defense cuts Hippo_Tron Dec 2012 #23
Hmmm.... truebluegreen Dec 2012 #10
Makes me like him even more.. truebrit71 Dec 2012 #12
The real problem is he is not sufficiently pro-Israel, imo. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #13
Hagel is perfect, a breath of fresh air in the stolid quarters of our national defense. nt bemildred Dec 2012 #14
Okay, I'm sold. Iggo Dec 2012 #15
Sounds like a great choice to me, veneer or no veneer. Pisces Dec 2012 #16
Unbelievable - Hagel was a conservative Republican, though sane on foreign policy. karynnj Dec 2012 #20
If the neocon liars at the Whoreshington Post hate Hagel... Joe Bacon Dec 2012 #25
hagel will do what obama tells him to do madrchsod Dec 2012 #26
another weak on defense - soft on Iran - peace, love and flower power 60's space cadet Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #27
WaPo editorial board is pretty conservative MBS Dec 2012 #28
one excellent commnt from the comment section of the Washington Post Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #29
OUCH! Cha Dec 2012 #32
yup . Well said n/t MBS Dec 2012 #34
What was Islamophobic about the piece? Behind the Aegis Dec 2012 #36
Why would anyone want to appoint a Republican? Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2012 #30
It depends what positions the people are in currently davidpdx Dec 2012 #35
Hagel seems just about right to me magical thyme Dec 2012 #37
Especially if the John Boltons of the world are against him xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #38
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WaPo Editorial: Chuck Ha...»Reply #0