Knowing Chuck Hagel from His Supporters and His Opponents
A little over a week ago, the Obama administration floated the name of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense. Obviously, his name was publicly put out to give the administration forewarning of what, if any, opposition they might receive to the possibility. It would be but a matter of days before both conservatives and centrist Democrats made known their serious opposition to Hagel’s appointment to such a major post.
Opposition began with a searing column by Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. Stephens noted that like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Hagel is among those who rant about the undue influence of what Hagel called “the Jewish lobby,” which he went on to say “intimidates a lot of people up here.” As Stephens writes, the word “intimidates” has the effect of ascribing “to the so-called Jewish lobby powers that are at once vast, invisible and malevolent; and because it suggests that legislators who adopt positions friendly to that lobby are doing so not from political conviction but out of personal fear.”
Hagel also made other similar remarks that indicated the nature of how he thinks. He told Aaron David Miller in 2006 “I’m a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator” as if consideration of the needs of our greatest ally in the Middle East is somehow contrary to his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Stephens writes:
Read these staccato utterances again to better appreciate their insipid and insinuating qualities, all combining to cast the usual slur on Jewish-Americans: Dual loyalty. Nobody questions Mr. Hagel’s loyalty. He is only making those assertions to question the loyalty of others.
Still, Mr. Hagel managed to say “I support Israel.” This is the sort of thing one often hears from people who treat Israel as the Mideast equivalent of a neighborhood drunk who, for his own good, needs to be put in the clink to sober him up.
On other issues pertinent to the Middle East, Hagel took positions contrary to the interests of our own country. In 2006 he called Israel’s war against Hezbollah “the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon.” He opposed calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and urged Obama to support “direct, unconditional” talks with Iran. In 2009 he urged direct talks as well with Hamas. Then, with John Kerry, he wrote an op-ed in 2008 urging talks with Syria — a double-standard second to none. For these rogue states: no preconditions; for Israel: toughness and opposition.
Bret Stephens concludes by writing that if Obama appoints Hagel, it would serve to confirm his argument that for those who wish to see the truth, “Mr. Obama is not a friend of Israel.”
Some, like Mayor Ed Koch, who supported Obama and believed the president’s assurances that he is a supporter of Israel, immediately came out in opposition to a potential Hagel appointment. Speaking to The Algemeiner newspaper, Koch said:
“I believe it would be a terrible appointment,” he said, “and so do apparently most of the Jewish leaders who have expressed themselves.”
Explaining his opposition to the appointment, which is looking increasingly likely to materialize, Koch said that it would lead Arab states to believe that President Obama was seeking to create distance between his administration and Israel.
“Such an appointment would give great comfort to the Arab world that would think that President Obama is seeking to put space between Israel and his administration,” Koch said, “I hope he doesn’t go forward with that appointment.”
Koch once again was a lonely voice among Democrats, most of whom have chosen to remain silent.
Writing at The Daily Beast, Eli Lake was told by an anonymous pro-Israel advocate on the hill that “The pro-Israel community will view the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel in an extremely negative light. His record is unique in its animus towards Israel.” And from Josh Block, formerly AIPAC’s communications director and now CEO of The Israel Project,
While in the Senate, Hagel voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, refused to call on the E.U. to designate Hezbollah a terrorist group, and consistently voted against sanctions on Iran for their illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. It is a matter of fact that his record on these issues puts him well outside the mainstream Democratic and Republican consensus.
Block’s point is most important. Hagel’s position — and this cannot be stressed too much — is way out of line with sensible mainstream views on the nature of the Iranian regime, terrorism, and how the United States must deal with the problem. Therefore, it is important to look at who is supporting Hagel, and their reasons for doing so. Sometimes, the reasons why others support Hagel are most revealing.
First, let us turn to the would-be pro-Israel journalist Peter Beinart, who is most well-known for harsh criticism of Israel’s defense policies, of the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and for his taking positions that are an anathema to most of the Israeli electorate. Unlike Stephens, Caroline Glick, Josh Block and Ed Koch, all of whom make a strong case against a Hagel appointment, Beinart is completely in favor of it.
Beinart, who in the past favored the Cold War liberalism and tough policies of the Truman administration, now faults Truman for taking the US on the road to the war in Vietnam, and contrasts Dwight Eisenhower favorably with Truman, for supposedly favoring less defense spending and criticizing the “military-industrial complex.” Hagel, he argues, would move us away from those who followed Truman, like George W. Bush, who got us into war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and moved us closer- — according to Beinart — to war with Iran. He writes:
Hagel’s assumption is the same: that since economic strength forms the foundation of national security, slashing the Pentagon budget, and thus reducing the debt, may actually make America stronger. “The Defense Department,” Hagel has argued, “has been bloated” and must “be pared down.” Hawks warn that cutting defense will make America more vulnerable to foreign threats. But Hagel, like Eisenhower, understands that a nation cannot meaningfully define its threats without first defining its interests. That means determining which corners of the globe really matter to the United States, and which don’t, and then figuring out how much defense spending you need. “We have not had any real strategic thinking in this country for years and years and years—strategic thinking in what are our interests,” Hagel told the Council on Foreign Relations. He’s right, and just asking the question would be a big shift from the Bush era.
Indeed, he argues that had Hagel been in Obama’s first administration, the president might not have fought the Taliban in Afghanistan and agreed to a surge which, temporarily at least, forced the terrorists to retreat:
Had Hagel been around to “speak for those ghosts [of Vietnam],” I’m not sure the Obama administration would have sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in a “surge” that, as Bob Woodward has shown, few in the White House believed could succeed. Hagel has also been more reluctant than Obama to support, even hypothetically, military action against Iran. Like Eisenhower, who scorned the idea that any war, once unleashed, could be controlled, Hagel reviles the bloodless, almost casual, way in which commentators discuss “air strikes” against Iran. Hagel doesn’t talk about air strikes; he talks about war.
To put it differently, Beinart favors Hagel because he sees him as someone like himself: a former hawk who now favors any option based on peace, even if it means that our opponents would advance and make the world a less safe place.
Another major defender of Hagel is none other than Andrew Sullivan, Beinart’s colleague at Newsweek/The Daily Beast. To Sullivan, serious opponents are only making “vile insinuations” that come from “the Greater Israel Lobby” that wants only to “to kill a nomination because a US Senator actually believe his job is to care first about the security and interests of the US, not Greater Israel; the reflexive equation of opposition to the Netanyahu administration or the settlements or the Gaza wars with pure bigotry.” He concludes his vitriolic screed with these words:
But for utopian fanatics, if casually calling honorable public servants anti-Semites helps them retain their dream of a Greater Israel, so be it. Which is why the president, if indeed he is contemplating an appointment for the Nebraska Republican, should not listen to the AIPAC thugs. He should what is right for this country, and not any other’s.
Rather than even try to answer the arguments of people like Josh Block who cite chapter and verse of Hagel’s anti-mainstream positions, he uses ad hominem words such as “AIPAC thugs” and claims Hagel’s opponents are guilty of dual loyalty — to Israel, and perhaps not even to the United States at all. In Sullivan’s eyes, Hagel’s opponents want only a “Greater Israel” and war with Iran, since they are “utopian fanatics.” Does Sullivan really think the foolish belief that the tyrants of Syria, Iran, and the Islamists of Hezbollah and Hamas (whom Hagel seems to think are open to reason) is a valid and correct view? Is he also not worried at all about what Iran might do with a nuclear weapon?
Finally, Hagel’s other most recent supporter is the liberal/leftist journalist John B. Judis, writing today at The New Republic. Judis, echoing Hagel and his supporters, sees the opposition coming exclusively from what he obviously sees as nefarious neo-conservative and Jewish interests. He writes:
The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition–but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent.
These critics include the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is funded by gambling mogul and greater-Israel proponent Sheldon Adelson; the Zionist Organization of America, which also opposes a two-state solution; and a sundry collection of fellow travellers, (sic) including the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. “Hagel has made clear he believes in the existence of a nefarious Jewish lobby that secretly controls U.S. foreign policy,” one Republican aide told The Weekly Standard. “This is the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is.”
Unlike Josh Block, who correctly shows that Hagel is out of the mainstream (Block is a centrist Democrat). Judis writes that Hagel’s foreign policy views, “including his positions on Israel and its American lobby, are, if anything, a reason to support rather than oppose his nomination.”
Note first his description of AIPAC as an Israeli lobby, rather than a group made up of Americans, including many Democrats, who support a strong Israel and an American-Israeli friendship. It is NOT an “Israeli lobby.” Note also his concentration on Adelson and the fringe ZOA, rather than mainstream Zionists, and his description of those who disagree with him as “fellow travelers” of Israel — a term that somehow impugns their criticism.
Judis then notes that Hagel asked for a seat on a non-existent “Foreign Policy Committee,” by which he probably means the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Judis likes Hagel’s preference for diplomacy, rather than war, and praises him for turning against the war in Iraq and refusing to favor “a phantom victory by escalation.” If Judis is referring to the surge, I hope that he is aware that it worked, and turned the tide. Referring to him as a “principled realist” akin to Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, he argues that Hagel favors the U.S. knowing “the limits of its power to unilaterally effect (sic) events, whether in Syria or Iran.”
Of course, Judis also praises Hagel for favoring the flawed “peace process” in the Middle East, as well as his belief that the US should engage in direct talks with Iran. In other words, Judis’s reasons for favoring Hagel would lead to more disasters for the U.S. in the world. He praises Hagel for seeking not the ouster of Hamas, but that they modify their behavior. He agrees with Hagel that the would-be “moderate elements” in Hamas should prevail, and that the US should talk to them and “test its behavior.” What, I ask, are the moderate elements in a group whose raison d’etre is to destroy Israel and create an Islamic state in its place? No wonder he agrees with those who call for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.
Then Judis presents his worst argument — one that is almost impossible to believe:
When America has refused to talk to adversaries, or to adversaries of its allies, it has courted disaster. That was certainly the case with the American decision not to recognize China after the Chinese revolution. If the United States had had relations with China in 1950, the Korean War might not have occurred, or might have been much shorter.
As one of my friends asked when he called this to my attention, “What is John Judis smoking?”
Is Judis implying that had we recognized Communist China in 1950, Kim Il-Sung would not have invaded North Korea? He obviously does not know, or has forgotten, that we had diplomatic relations with Stalin’s Soviet Union. And Stalin gave Kim the go-ahead to invade North Korea, having previously refused his requests to do so. After Dean Acheson had famously testified that North Korea was outside the U.S. defense perimeter, Stalin believed that the Communist bloc would face no opposition to a North Korean unification of Korea by force, and that he would be able to easily score a major victory for world Communism.
Finally, Judis is so sure of AIPAC’s power that he believes many in Congress vote for support to Israel because they are fearful of it, and not because of conviction. Evidently, he is not aware of the many polls that show overwhelming US support for Israel among our citizens, and that members of Congress reflect their constituents’ views. Moreover, many of Israel’s strongest supporters are Christians, and many Jews, particularly in New York and Florida, are the most critical of Israel and the least supportive of it. Yet he refers to AIPAC as a “Jewish organization.”
One can know a lot about Hagel’s worthiness by looking at the views of those who support him, and those who oppose him. Fortunately, the argument of writers like Beinart, Sullivan and Judis, who want to argue that only hard-line neo-cons oppose Hagel’s appointment, was torn apart when The Washington Post, a liberal establishment paper, editorially joined the opponents of a Hagel appointment. The editors wrote:
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….
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.
Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an option. Mr. Hagel has taken a different view, writing in a 2008 book that “the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.” The former senator from Nebraska signed on to an op-edin The Post this September that endorsed “keeping all options on the table” for stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. Hagel has elsewhere expressed strong skepticism about the use of force.
We share that skepticism — but we also understand that, during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate or halt its uranium-enrichment program. He will need a defense secretary ready to support and effectively implement such a decision. …
Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by his fellow senators. But Mr. Obama could make a better choice for defense secretary.
Now, the opposition to Hagel is bi-partisan, and those supporting his appointment with spurious arguments reflect only their own preference for being tough only with Israel and for not wanting to assert American power against our own very real enemies abroad.
“How long, oh Lord, how long…?” As a culture we have not addressed the many faces of antisemitism, in the case of Hagel, an outlook so obviously tied to isolationism. Certainly Philip Roth couldn’t get past it. I wrote about the obvious link between traditional Midwestern isolationism and blaming the Jews for wars here: http://clarespark.com/2011/06/03/neo-isolationists-and-the-jewish-problem/.
Between the isolationists and the stubbornly “anti-Zionist” impeccably virtuous Left, here and abroad, it is an ever more scary time to be of Jewish extraction.
Amazing, a defense secretary who cares about American security more than he cares about Israeli security. And who isn’t afraid to say it. No wonder radosh hates him. And who isn’t part of military industrial complex, like petreus. Dont back down Mr President. You’re pissing off all the right people.
You understand your president very well I can see. For him and the Progressive Party it is all about “pissing off all the right people”. Of course those who do not agree with their ideology are “all the right people”. Never has this country been so divided on all the important issues and never has one man/party been so responsible for such divisiveness.
Also stop and examine your repetitious and illogical talking points:
To say that supporting Israel threatens American security, is not a truism . . just something that you parrot. No sense in even arguing that point with you.
To call out the military-industrial complex is so dated and irrelevant as to almost be laughable. What we have is a government rife with crony capitalism – the military’s part in that is no worse than any other bloated branch. At least we get a first class protection and deterrence from them. Look what we get from the rest of our tax dollars – aggressively incompetent departments and agencies that are slowly eroding our way of life and standard of living.
We already have a president who consistently goes against US interests and who helps out our avowed enemies every chance he gets.
Clare, we’re not of “jewish extraction” we are Jews. for close to 6,000 years and you can check the DNA. chuck hagel has every reason to be intimidated by Israel’s Jews and those of us here in america (for a few hundred years). the contribution to the planet has been so enormous and awesome. added to that, is the advanced agricultural science and technology developed by Israel that the Jewish state shares with the world. it is keeping Africans from starving and advancing the development of poor nations to bloom in the 21st century. a lot of people don’t like this. it makes their population able to confront their oppressors, who are generally speaking, their leadership. all the slimy palm grease can’t beat that back. hagel, like these others mentioned including the hologram in the white house, take a dim view of that. can you blame them?
Ronnie: Thanks for bringing anti Israel, and, yes, anti-semitic sentiments to our attention. Who knew?
Hagel is not only an anti-semite he is also anti-American, regardless of his war service so long ago.Usually the two go hand in hand.
Hagel is pro Iran and all its attendant terror groups, and THAT should disqualify him on its face. However, the US is dealing with a whole cabal of anti-Americans at the helm, and this is why Hagel is his nominee, as well as Kerry.
In other words, those who jaw jaw the enemy, giving them time to arm, are the ones the Isalmist/Radical-in-Chief supports – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/when-authentic-revolutionaries-hold-the-reins-of-american-power-centers-via-the-most-radical-regime-in-u-s-history-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Birds of a radical feather!
Mr. Hagel managed to say “I support Israel.” This is the sort of thing one often hears from people who treat Israel as the Mideast equivalent of a neighborhood drunk who, for his own good, needs to be put in the clink to sober him up.
Actually, here’s what Hegel said:
“I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”
Exactly the correct kind of U.S. consitutional patriot we have far to few of today! Our only regards to Israel or any other ally is that if they find themselves in war we will uphold our allied agreement and come running. Other than that we stay out of their affairs unless they seek our otherwise non binding consultation.
Hagel has been put up for three reasons (highest-weighted probabilities);
1. If he is confirmed (fat chance) he would give The One a veneer of “bipartisanship” in his desire to throw Israel under the Islamist bus.
2. If he isn’t, The One can blame the “Israel lobby” for his defeat.
3. After everyone has expended political capital to stop Hagel, Kerry sails through as an “acceptable, middle-of-the-road” candidate.
Kerry is so “middle of the road” he campaigned for President on a platform of “reducing (Islamist) terrorism to a law-enforcement problem”. Rather than acknowledge that what was going on was an actual war, dating back to the Clinton Administration.
Kerry is apparently a firm believer in the theory of “It’s only a war if we choose to engage”. If it’s only “them” fighting, he argues, we’re OK. We’ll just have “them” arrested… somehow.
It’s an entirely illogical and ineffectual theory, which is precisely what The One wants. Which explains why he wants Kerry for SecState.
Hagel is a decoy. Don’t be fooled. Kerry is the “chosen one”.
Be aware of that, and plan accordingly.
clear ether
eon
That’s called “politics” as in “war is deceit” … That’s strange; Islam and the Left have the same motto! Who woulda thunk it?!!!!
Almost but not entirely.
Hagel is one part post election-Victory-busta move-stick-in-your-eye gall and one part disaffected FORMER republican in every sense ala Huntsman.
This is a guy who was so critical of a wounded sitting president on the way out the door that he literally NAPALMED EVERY POLITICAL BRIDGE EVER BUILT OR THROWN HIS WAY IN HIS CAREER….
Because he is not nor does he desire to be in the GOP.
So it is irresistible for Obama to play this kind of political game; name a dispised FORMER Republican and let the press claim it is a ‘bipartisan’ this that and the other thing…when in fact he never had any intention of naming this oaf.
Hagle is a personality disorder twit. Nobody wants him nor does anybody want to work with him – in either party. What he is is good copy – something for the press to chew on for a month or two.
What is getting interesting is just how empty this supreme commanders cupboard is given he is supposed to be the second coming of FDR and everything more.
These are the Heavy Weights we are contemplating – Chuck Hagle, Susan Rice, & John Kerry? More like Weight Watchers time at the American Center for Progress; loser central.
Whats next? Jimmy Carter taking over for the absent minded Nobel winner over at the Energy Dept? Ralph Nader as the next car Czar?
Otherwise his entire second term cabinate is the magical mystery tour – were exactly is the team of anything let alone the lincolnesque team of rivals?
IF he has the brass to standup and reject the decades old strategies of nation building and a militarized Department of State, then I don’t care what his name or political affilation may be. Likewise, if he has the brass to standup and reject the new military design and strategy that is both an unsustainable cost and idiotic to future wars with major militaries he is the man for the job. If he advocates moving all single and married (E1/E7) military personnel living quarters back on to military installations with exceptions for senior enlisted (E-8/9) and officers (w-4/5 & O7/+) he is the man for the job. If he advocates cutting down the size of the Pentagon, General grade ranks and eliminating ‘non essential’ warfare policy and training planners he is the man for the job. If he has the brass to standup to all the corruption affiliated with the DOD from contractors and the congress, he is the man for the job.
He isn’t any of that. He will cut the defense not by getting rid of graft and corruption(which there is much of and needs to get rid of) but by slicing our war fighting cability. It would not surprise me if he; like huntsman,paul, many democrats; wants to gut our carrier forces by half. The navy IS the most expensive part of our military, but also the most vital. It takes years to build a navy. Years we will not have if a major war comes. Years that those who will just cut and cut and cut the defense budget will flush down the toilet for some easy political captial about how they are “propeace and fisically minded”. Your points have alot of common sense behind them and I agree in general. However he wont do any of them because obama dosen’t want to do them. As for your thing against isreal, if I am mistaken about that I am sorry in advance,isreal is really the only good country in the mideast.everyone else is various grades of S***. Even our “ally” the saudis.Supporting the isrealis is the best course of action if you want to the mideast rise from being a cesspool like africa. We used to have the shah, but well we know what happened there.Isreal just wants to live in peace. Hagel wants to treat its furture murders like house guests. That makes him and others like him scum. They want to leave an ally out dry so they can be seen as this great peace maker even if it is the peace of the grave of isreal. That is my view.I want isreal to stand on its own and guess what? It has for years without us deploying troops to fight its battles for it.Hagel has his head up his a** if he thinks we are going to fight its wars for it. Isreal only needs the US to keep the backers of its oppopents from infering while kicks their a**es. I think i have made my point. again if i took your views the wrong way I am sorry for that. You really do have good common sense ideas on how to fix the problems of the military acting like idiots and spending too much mney that I agree with.
Thanks tagon! The ‘new’ military ‘personnel’ structure, transitioning since the later 80s and through the 90′s has become an unsustainable economic cost to the nation and even its very mission capabilities into the future. The Army took the lead and is a typical ‘coporate conglomerate’ with an overload of brass, corruption, waste, non warfare essential departments, agencies and staffing.
The ‘all volunteer’ military concept has even transitioned the past couple of decades or so, taking a very costly toll on the military objective and mission and… society in general. The lower ranks (the core warriors) are loaded with young people who are married with family dependents well beyond their financial means not to mention all the family domestic problems. This not only adds significant direct cost to the military but it also has severe consequences that shift to our society at large….all with a very big social and economic price tag.
When I entered into the Marine Corps all enlisted below the rank of seargeant(career status back then) had to seek permission to get married and that permission wasn’t given freely. Husbands and wives could not be in the military at the same time. Everybody was required to live on base unless you were married and had to wait a month or so for on base housing. Heck, below E-5 you couldn’t even have a vehicle registered on base. Of course an E-1 out of boot camp and less than 2 years only made $83 a month. I was a bit richer starting at $222 a month. Everything you ‘needed’ was found on any base. Very efficient bus transportation around base and into town was available day and night until 2am. The troops of your companies and battalions were your first and in most cases your only family while you were in. We were all lean, mean and mission focused at all times and literally prepared and ready in a heart beat to deploy and take care of business. Not the case today! Today, they have all kinds of legal and family business to take care of before deploying and all to often while you’re in theater fighting an enemy. Not a good thing!
Anyway, our military is in a huge mess from top to bottom and adding in all the non direct costs to our goverment (the taxpayers) it is by far the most mis- managed and costly part of our government.
As for foreign relations. I’m for leaving every country alone unless they come to tread on us or seriously attempt to disrupt our economy. The same applies to all of our allies. If their soveriengty is threatened by an attack, pick up the phone and call us when you need our direct help. We need to end the 70 + years of meddling and later,the 60 years of nation building strategies.
In his antisemitism, Hagel is trumped by Petraeus who in turn is trumped by Obama. Basically he is a small fry in this area.
Hagel is pro-Israel in comparison to Petraeus. And as far as Obama goes, well of course, he might as well have been born in Austria about a hundred years ago.
PJM’s own Andrew C. McCarthy: “Boot’s attack on West is an effort to defend a surpassingly foolish statement in which Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, and drew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.”
If you were to employee some departmentalization in analyzing the U.S., UK, Middle East, Israel, Germany Russia, you might come to some different conclusions.
A good starting point might be the history preceeding the 1930s British Middle East Policy and up through the late 1930′s. Then maybe compartmentalize U.S. Saudi Arabia foreign policy and relationships of the 1930s. And again compartmentalize the U.S. foreign relations and policies of the Middle East post WWII and through the 1950s. Just do that up to the present and you can have a much greater picture of the subject.
Rightly or wrongly, the Jews have been and continue to be central to European, British, U.S. and the Arab/Muslim regions political and military conflicts. The U.S. though long liberated as an independent sovereignty from the UK nonetheless, continued to be an active part of British Imperialism machine. Today the members of the CFR continue, in many respects, the mindset and strategic policies of the old British Imperial machine. Add to the equations the Western energy (oil & natural gas) security strategies involving the Arab regions and the critical sea lanes involving the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz.
The ‘common denominator’ of much of the conflict today continues to be the Jews and thus, such conclusions by some are correct whether we want to agree or not. On the other hand Russia and China perpetuate both the Jewish and energy equations of the conflicts by utilizing our own cold war strategies to bankrupt the U.S. and its allies involving themselves in the conflicts.
Take it from a Nebraska native: Hagel is a MENACE! He couldn’t cut it as a Nebraska politician, why the hell would anyone be interested in him on the national stage? You think McCain is tone-deaf and inconsistent? Ha! Chuckie’s got him beat by a mile. I wouldn’t let this guy paint my poodle’s toenails.
It’s funny that Hagel and Petraeus are being brought up together, as both are men who’s day has come and gone. Both have laudable military records. Neither is fit for high office in 2012. We need new blood. New thinking. Both these men failed their former posts for a reason. Both of them are nearing retirement age. They need to step aside.
Kim Il-Sung invaded which Korea?
The U.S. though long liberated as an independent sovereignty from the UK nonetheless, continued to be an active part of British Imperialism machine.
Oh my, where does one begin?….
The demand that Britain pay back its US war debts?
Truman vs. Bevin?
Eisenhower vs. Eden?
Vietnam? (hey, how about that “French Imperialism machine”!!??)
But there have been convergences, you say? Gosh, must be that “British Imperialism machine”!!
Mr. Radosh omitted one major supporter of Hagel, Stephen Walt (remember him?).
And here are Mr. Walt’s reasons for supporting Hagel:
“He’s got the right enemies. Hagel does have one political liability: Unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby. In the summer of 2006, for example, he incurred the lobby’s wrath by calling for a joint ceasefire during Israel’s war with Hezbollah. Pressed by the lobby, Bush & Co. rejected this advice and let the war drag on, even though prolonging it made Hezbollah more popular in Lebanon and cost additional Israeli lives. Hagel has also been outspoken in calling for the United States to be more evenhanded in its handling of the peace process, and he’s generally thought to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran. Needless to say, such positions are anathema to Israel’s hard-line supporters, some of whom are already attacking Hagel’s suitability for SecDef. For the rest of us, however, Hagel’s views are not only sensible — they are in America and Israel’s best interest. ”
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/13/top_five_reasons_obama_should_pick_chuck_hagel_for_secdef
You really are known by the company you keep.
Ronnie – Chuck Hagel aside – criticizing a friend while advocating talks with an enemy is not uneven treatment in favor of the enemy.
You’re still friends with your friend and enemies with your enemy and it doesn’t mean you’re trying to totally switch those positions.
RE: “For these rogue states: no preconditions; for Israel: toughness and opposition.”
Again – aside from Chuck Hagel – you fault Andrew Sullivan for aggressive language (calling people thugs) but then you refer to his “vitriolic screed”.
Good or bad you’re both doing the same thing.
The media jerks us around with information, misinformation and disinformation. How anyone can make any coherent sense of it all? One critical piece of the puzzle is unknown to most. Just as we have the crime against the Palestinian Arabs (1947-67) making the news for more than sixty years, we have the virtually unreported, well documented crime of eleven Arab states expelling (1947-67)their Jews who’d lived in their midst for millenia: 865,000 of them then; today, more than half of Israel’s Jews. What’s Hagel’s position on this issue? How would it help?
It would really be best if all outside parties made themselves scarce. Let the Israelis and the Arab League work this out by themselves and keep the media out as well. The Jews and the Arabs know how to negotiate with each other. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years. We all just complicate matters, and the Jews and Arabs naturally just posture and grandstand back. Keep the photographers and interviewers and press release people out of it! Maybe lock the door!
Israel is not America’s greatest ally, but one of its greatest enemies, which is a fact that the Jewish community in America should come to realize, without the anti-goyimism of the Talmudic terrorists of the Zionists that threatens any sort of free discussion without being called an antisemite.
First there is no formal security pact between, Israel and the U.S. No we just foot Israel’s bills for its progroms against the Palestinians.
Real friends of America do not bomb its ships like the USS Liberty. Real allies do not spy and steal vital security secrets of the United States, and do not protest when caught. Real allies do not have spies that cheer while America is attacked on 9/11 undoubtedly with help from intelligence networks allied Israel, as state born from terrorist operations.
Now American Jews will best serve the Jewish People and humanity, when Israel is no longer run by terrorist thugs and when the mission of the American Republic is no longer interfered with against its principles.
That Senator Hegal put his Oath of Office before considerations of Politics is commendable, too bad no one in Congress is willing to do the same otherwise Obama should have long been impeached and not for his support of Israel.
The Jewish lobby exists. And here we see one tiny malodorous corner of it. The WaPo and AIPAC would represent the big end of it.
Hahahaaaa… the “mythical Jewish lobby doesn’t exist” is the standard disclaimer, yet here it is emanating in unison from every political corner, trumpeting its power and denying its existence at the very same time.
Be careful though, if you succeed in taking down your biggest whale yet, people may start to wonder where exactly does that smell come from.
Hagel is the Iranian version of Stuxnet. He has been reprogrammed by Iranian cybernetic scientists to infiltrate the US military and work on behest of Iran> He cant help himself. Kind of like appointing Cindy Sheehan (remember her) as SecDef
Councils for Civil Liberties are not so concerned with actual Liberty, but more with putting definitions on behaviours acceptable to them, just as environmentalists wish to control use of all the land on earth, regardless of ownership or human needs.
If Judis is referring to the surge, I hope that he is aware that it worked, and turned the tide.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With respect, Mr. Radosh (as I love your writing)…this is the kind of non-factual claptrap that infects our foreign policy and makes it impossible to accomplish anything remotely approaching “true victory” in our recent foreign policy excursions.
By Gen. David Petreaus’ own barometers, the surge did not “work” or “turn the tide.” Of course, it curbed insurgent violence and make Iraq safer physically–but what sensible person actually believed that wasn’t going to happen?? When you put thousands of additional police on the streets, it’s naturally going to make things safer. But that increased security was supposed to give the Iraqi government space to accomplish the entire purpose of the surge, a political solution and compromise between the warring factions. That did not even remotely happen. Al-Maliki rules Iraq like an Islamist strongman…
And even if there had been a political understanding reached, it would still be largely between different factions of Muslim jihadists led by the likes of Al-Maliki and Al-Sadr. Some “victory” for the West–a nation led by a single totalitarian socialist Arab psychopath is now led by a coalition of totalitarian jihadist Arab psychopaths.
I don’t disagree with the overall point of the article that Hagel would not be a great choice for Sec. of Defense–although I don’t subscribe to him the immense level of Israel hostility that some apparently do. But the choice for a Cabinet appointment is small potatoes compared to our continued failure to judge our recent foreign policy record through a remotely realistic prism. Handing over entire countries (some oil-rich) to jihadist politicians democratically elected by jihadist-majority populaces is no less foolhardy a foreign policy than the isolationist impulse to stick our head in the sand.