Get PJ Media on your Apple

Hagel’s First Address: Light on Crises, Heavy on Restructuring

"If we refuse to lead, something, someone will fill the vacuum. The next great power may not use its power as responsibly."

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

April 3, 2013 - 6:43 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel gave his first major policy address in his new role at the National Defense University today as North Korea announced it was ready for a nuclear strike on the U.S.

Still, it took a question after Hagel’s speech before an auditorium of uniformed and civilian Defense employees to get Hagel to utter the name of the communist nation.

“The United States is emerging from more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the threat of violent extremism persists and continues to emanate from weak states and ungoverned spaces in the Middle East and North Africa,” Hagel said.

“There also stands an array of other security challenges of varying vintage and degrees of risk to the United States. The proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, the increased availability of advanced military technologies in the hands of state and non-state actors, the risk of regional conflicts that could draw in the United States, the debilitating and dangerous curse of human despair and poverty, as well as the uncertain implications of environmental degradation.”

Shortly after Hagel’s remarks, the Pentagon announced in a brief statement it would deploy a  ballistic missile defense system to Guam in the coming weeks “as a precautionary move to strengthen our regional defense posture against the North Korean regional ballistic missile threat.”

“This deployment will strengthen defense capabilities for American citizens in the U.S. Territory of Guam and U.S. forces stationed there,” the Pentagon press office said.

Hagel’s address was destined to be a content struggle between North Korea and sequestration. While the department faces massive uncertainty sparked by the budget cuts, he’d just met South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Yun Byung-Se at the Pentagon before the trip to Fort McNair, at which Hagel reaffirmed “that the United States’ enduring defense and extended deterrence commitments to South Korea will not change and that it is our duty to remain vigilant during this time of heightened tension on the Korean Peninsula,” according to a readout of the meeting from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little.

Last night, Hagel was on the phone with China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan, a call in which “the secretary emphasized the growing threat to the U.S. and our allies posed by North Korea’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and expressed to General Chang the importance of sustained U.S.-China dialogue and cooperation on these issues,” according to Little.

When it came time to address the military and civilian staff in the hall, Hagel focused less on the “combustible and complex” world and more on reshaping the military.

“The United States military remains an essential tool of American power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits. Most of the pressing security challenges today have important political, economic, and cultural components and do not necessarily lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength,” he said.

“…As this audience knows very well, this process of change and realignment is already well under way.”

Hagel said the sequestration cuts, projected to wipe $500 billion from the Pentagon over the next decade, are “already having a disruptive and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force” because of the disproportionate effect on operations and maintenance.

“The department has already made many cuts, including cuts to official travel and facilities maintenance. We have imposed hiring freezes and halted many important but non-essential activities,” he said. “However, it will have to do more. Across-the-board reductions of the size we are looking at will demand that we furlough civilian personnel, which could affect morale and may impact productivity.”

A student from the National War College later said to the defense secretary “in case your advisers haven’t told you, it is affecting morale.”

Hagel vowed to reassess numbers and ratios of civilians, enlisted, officers, and reserves and study “the appropriate distribution of troops performing combat, support and administrative duties” to “adapt to new realities.”

“In many respects, the biggest long-term fiscal challenge facing the department is not the flat or declining top-line budget. It is the growing imbalance in where that money is being spent internally,” he said. “…If these trends are not reversed, the former chief of naval operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, warned DoD could transform from an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering benefit programs, capable of buying only limited quantities of irrelevant and overpriced equipment.”

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
“North Korea knows the path that’s available to it — the regime does — and that is a path towards greater integration in the international community, stronger economic development, and better prospects for the North Korean people if they take substantive steps towards denuclearization and abide by the series of international obligations that they are currently flouting,” Carney said.

Carney is so full of manure ... so is Hagel. SAI (Same As Iran), rhetoric supporting the international commies in the WH is easy; but when the SHTF the politics must go. The comment, “The United States military remains an essential tool of American power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits." is a jab at Bush, implying recklessness in wielding power - blaming Bush for the wars of the past 10 years and thereby totally whitewashing any responsibility for current events due to Obama's foreign policy debacles. Hagel is simply making sure that Obama is NOT responsible for ANYTHING. Obama even campaigns against the things that he's implemented and supported, so as to create an impression that he is NOT responsible for the outcomes of those disastrous decisions. That been Obama's MO all along - drive by politics. Hagel is simply doing what Obama does - covering for the administrations disastrous foreign policy decisions. Proof? Here's one example: Iran and NoKo's launching pad were designed by the same guy that designed Pakistan's nuclear hardwear. Iran and NoKo are twins ... and not once did Hagel even mention the connection between Iran, NoKo and Pakistan. Did anyone consider Russia in all this? NoKo ramping up the nuclear threat simply means that other more sinister enterprises are provided with some cover ... Russia has its own little nuclear developments carefully hidden in places where even our intelligence officials have neglected to look. Putin is sucking up to the West ... and that's a sure sign of some nefarious activity on his part. The next POTUS must NOT play politics with the lives of 300 million people. Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
is a jab at Bush, implying recklessness in wielding power - blaming Bush for the wars of the past 10 years and thereby totally whitewashing any responsibility for current events due to Obama's foreign policy debacles."

Look down towards the bottom for a timeline chart that was being referenced.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"“The United States military remains an essential tool of American power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits. Most of the pressing security challenges today have important political, economic, and cultural components and do not necessarily lend themselves to being resolved by conventional military strength,”

The single most important comment into Hagel's vision of using our miitary assests around the world -- within appreciation of its limits! What limit could he be taking about? War Powers vs. War Powers resolution? I think so and with constitutional just cause. If not, it should be!

Since 1973 and the War Powers Resolution Act, the president AND the congress have routinely abused and ignored the constitutional 'cause (trigger)and constraints (60-day rule)' of the authority. Under the guise of nation-building the Department of States 'manipulates' war and military conflict authority around the world. Is that really the constitutional intent for our military? Is the War Powers Resolution (Act) actually constitional -- especially when its not enforced to the letter?

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

Then consider the use of the SEALS and Delta Force, et al, in operations around the world that are never unclassified. Consider the expansion of military use in Lybia and now in North Africa today. Are we a nation under our own constitution or a nation under the authority of the UN? Should the State Department be utilizing our military in the name of nation-building and thus, driving the authority for the uses of our military in foreign nations?

I'm hopeful Hagel will force these discussions into the public arena with the hopes of returning our military asses back the the constitutional intent of 'defending' our 'homeland' sovereignty.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “Hagel’s First Address: Light on Crises, Heavy on Restructuring”