Skip Navigation

Steve Clemons

Steve Clemons is Washington editor at large for The Atlantic and editor of Atlantic Live. He writes frequently about politics and foreign affairs.
More

Clemons is a senior fellow and the founder of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, a centrist think tank in Washington, D.C., where he previously served as executive vice president. He writes and speaks frequently about the D.C. political scene, foreign policy, and national security issues, as well as domestic and global economic-policy challenges.

Officials: Chuck Hagel Was a 'Gift From God' for the Israeli USO

Critics charge that Chuck Hagel went on crusade in 1980s to close a USO mission in Israel -- but Israelis involved then say the potential secretary of defense nominee actually saved the operation. 

Thumbnail image for Hagel Lugar Obama.jpg
Jason Reed/Reuters

Admiral Ze'ev Almog, or Aluf Almog in Hebrew, speaks in a deep baritone, no-BS, command-authority voice that must have intimidated enemies and political rivals inside and outside Israel's command structure over the past decades. He exudes confidence, authority, and a compelling patriotism for the State of Israel for which he fought in so many wars. The nearly 78-year old former Commander-in-Chief of the Israeli Navy and former head of the Israel Shipyards fought in the Suez Crisis, the Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War, the 1982 Lebanon War, and through the long span of what is called the South Lebanon Conflict.

220px-Rear_Admiral_Ze'ev_Almog.jpgAlmog was commander of the battle-tested Naval Commando Unit, Flotilla 13, performing more than 80 combat operations ranging from penetrating Egypt's Port Said and raids on Adabiya coastal forts to sinking Egyptian torpedo boats. He is credited with dramatic transformation of Israel's sea-based military platforms and operations, and is one of those legendary leaders from whom many Israelis still have the benefit of learning about high stakes moments in the nation's history. Ze'ev Almog has also been a friend of and corresponding with former US Senator Chuck Hagel for decades.

I tracked down the one-time naval commander-in-chief one late night by cell phone. First, I got his grandson, to whom I recounted why I wanted to speak to his grandfather. The young man responded by saying his grandfather would insist on me retelling everything again "exactly." Why was I calling? What was the purpose? What did I intend to do with my interview? Almog is cautious but forceful - and a really busy man. I called four times in one night - finally securing my interview at what was about 1 a.m. for him in Israel.

And then we talked about Chuck Hagel.

The reason I tracked down this acclaimed military leader is that he had also long been involved with the USO, which supports the well-being of US military personnel stationed around the world, and is chartered by the US government but funded entirely in the private sector. Many Americans who weren't soldiers or relatives of soldiers became aware of the USO because of the extraordinary profile that celebrity Bob Hope gave to the organization by performing for US troops during World War II, the Korean War, and more. Almog was selected in 1992 by the USO World Board of Governors to serve as the first USO President in Israel -- and he had been deeply involved with and supportive of USO activities inside Israel in the years before his assumption of the organization's presidency.

I also tracked down Gilla Gerzon, the longtime former director of the USO's operation in Haifa, Israel. Why? An article recently appeared charging Chuck Hagel, who from 1987-1990 was the president & CEO of the USO, with an obsessive anti-Jewish compulsion to close the Haifa operation. The article, "The Saga of Hagel and Haifa," written by senior writer Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, quotes some who accuse Hagel of having an anti-Semitic fervor that drove him to want to close this facility.

But after digging into this a bit -- both on the American side and Israel side of the debate -- there is ample evidence that this charge against Hagel is at best unsubstantiated by evidence and at face value completely untrue.

When Hagel took over the USO in 1987, the organization was flat on its back and near bankruptcy - and by the fall of 1989, it had more than $1.8 million in the bank, signifying a major reversal of fortunes. Hagel was compelled to shutter a number of under-performing or anachronistic USO platforms that no longer aligned with the habits and travel patterns of US military personnel. And thus when he came into office, he reviewed all of the USO facilities - including the one in Haifa - and decided to keep the Haifa operation open, expanding it in fact, while shuttering ten others in the Middle East region. Hagel's USO performance and challenges are well outlined in this segment of Charlyne Berens's book Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward.

The Free Beacon article states that the USO's then-president Chuck Hagel "led the controversial charge to shutter the port [the Haifo USO operation] during his tenure with the organization." While on one hand, Kredo acknowledges that the USO reported to him that it has no evidence or records to suggest than an effort, or "charge," was made to close Haifa U.S.O. during Hagel's term, he quotes some who recall Hagel on a Haifa-closing crusade, making comments that at least one person felt bordered on anti-Semitism. In particular, the author cites Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs senior staff member Marsha Halteman who states that in a meeting with various concerned individuals and groups, Hagel said "Let the Jews pay for it."

Halteman recounts that she confronted Hagel and told him that she "found his comments to be anti-Semitic." And the piece continues to generically cite others who believe that Hagel was hostile to Jews in general during this period.

This is all remarkable if true, so I sought out those who actually helped run and had direct supervisory authority over and proximity to the Haifa USO operation.

The collective view of Israeli voices directly involved with the USO is that the depiction of Hagel could not be more distant from their experiences and recollections.

Former Israeli Navy Commander in Chief Ze-ev Almog said that Chuck Hagel "was completely positive towards us." He said that in "my experience with the USO, I have never heard a single word that he acted to close the USO in Israel. It happened later."

Indeed, the Haifa USO port was closed in 2002 -- well after Chuck Hagel's tenure, during which Almog and others I interviewed said that Hagel and the USO Board kept Haifa open.

He said that before he was nominated as the first Israeli president of USO, Almog did not know Hagel - and then they became closely acquainted after - meeting twice during trips Hagel made to Israel. Almog continued that they have corresponded over the years, exchanging views, sharing drafts of speeches given, and the like.

Almog said that his experience with Hagel has always been "completely positive" and that he has never seen Hagel "act against Israel." He continued that while he became president of the Israel chapter of the USO after Hagel had left his position, he never heard, observed, or read anything about an effort by Hagel to close the Haifa operation - with which Almog became intimately and directly involved. He said that from his vantage point, these assertions in the recent article by Adam Kredo are groundless.

I was then interested in whether this obvious hero in Israel's military establishment had any reservations at all about Hagel's larger views about Israel:

Clemons:  In your interactions with Chuck Hagel did you ever experience any negativity about Israel, or its people or institutions?

Almog:  Not at all.   I must be fair.  I heard about, and even read some articles about, his negative attitude towards Israel and I never met such an occurrence.

Look. One time one of my best friends from San Diego - a very good friend of mine - attracted my attention that Hagel was against signing a press request to release Jews from Russia. My friend is not Jewish. He said to me, "Look. See - your friend - see how he behaves!" He was the only Senator among the 100 that opposed the signature for that publication.

I sent it to Chuck, and he sent me back his letter to President Clinton, and what President Clinton answered to him. Those two letters were sent to me showing that he thought it was rather better to do it that way than doing it through the press - and he fully supported this claim to release the Jews, but to go through the President and not to the press. Although I understand he was the only Senator to take that position.

What Almog shared by way of an interesting anecdote is that Hagel in this case avoided jumping on a media bandwagon and used his role as a United States senator to make a difference in a policy matter, forgoing personal vanity or media puffery.  It's unclear how many of the other 99 US senators sent private, compelling letters to Bill Clinton on this matter, but it's easy to presume that far more signed their names passively to a media vehicle on the issue -- rather than more proactively engaging in a serious exchange with the president of the United States on the matter. 

gilla gerzon.jpgGilla Gerzon, fondly referred to by many US soldiers and Marines as the "mother of the 6th Fleet", was director of the USO Mission in the port of Haifa for nearly 20 years and served in that capacity when Hagel was the organization's CEO.  Gerzon is the first Israeli citizen to receive the U.S. Navy Commendation Medal.  I tracked her down to ask her to share her recollections of Hagel and the debate surrounding whether the Haifa USO mission would remain open or close.

Clemons:  I am calling to ask your recollections of Chuck Hagel's tenure as president and CEO of the USO and the discussions in the late 1980s about closing the Haifa facility you directed.  Could you share your thoughts?

Gerzon:  First of all, I must say that I admire him. I have great respect for him.

Clemons:  When were you at the Haifa USO mission? [Subsequent reseach shows she was the founding director of the USO Haifa mission and served from its opening in December 1984 through its closing in September 2002].

Gerzon:  I was the USO Director in Haifa -- So many years, almost 20 years. I was director during the time when Chuck Hagel was President of the USO.

Clemons:  Do you remember Chuck Hagel trying to close the Haifa operation?

Gerzon:  No. Look, I do not remember that he did anything like that. The issue is....OK, listen. He came to visit Israel with his wife. He came to see the operation, and that was the first time I met him, and he was very moved I think by what we were doing because he saw that for us this was a very, very important mission.

The issue is you need to understand the importance of young people who are going overseas. They are -- I have, always been very patriotic to the USO mission and very patriotic toward the military, to the servicemen and women.  Here [in Israel] service is mandatory, but in America they volunteer to do it. They don't have an easy life.

Imagine you are 18 or 19, and you are overseas, you don't know the culture, the people, the language, and you are coming off the ship. We felt very special towards the US Marines and Navy. In the Gulf War, we had the patriots from the Army. So, just imagine you are 19 years old, you are away from home, you have a birthday and someone gives you a birthday party. Maybe "Happy Birthday David"....and just 18 years old or 19. A small thing makes a big difference.

For me, it was an absolute gift of God and for our volunteers when Chuck Hagel came to Israel. I think he felt that, the importance of those overseas here who were helping American men and women. 

From this first moment I felt like he was a great supporter. He had the wisdom of his heart. You know every leader can be a leader, but you have to have wisdom in your heart to feel what is important. I think he was very wonderful for us by making the best decision to leave the doors open, and then he was a great supporter of us. He truly admired the USO Mission here and our work.
The actual USO Director in Haifa during the late 1980s review of her facility says that Chuck Hagel's visit "was an absolute gift of God" and goes on to praise him effusively for his support.  This seems to be vital material missing from the Washington Free Beacon article charging Hagel with having been on a crusade to close the facility.

On the US side, I spoke with Edward "Ned" Powell, former president & CEO of USO world headquarters who led the organization when the Haifa mission was closed.  He said that he had no idea whether Chuck Hagel had sought to close the mission earlier or not. He said he had never been given any word that he had worked to do that. 

But Powell said that what is often not understood -- no matter the circumstanced about Haifa at that time -- is that the USO is a completely private organization, supported by private dollars though it was congressionally chartered as an organization.  Powell said that the world changes, that the location of American servicemen and women in the world has shifted from certain theaters of conflict to new ones.  He said that it made no sense in 2002, after the debacle of 9/11 and the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, to preference USO facilities in Haifa when there was a massive troop deployment on the other side of the Middle East and in South Asia.

Powell said "I closed Paris.  Believe me, I would have loved to keep visiting the USO Mission in Paris, but it would have been wrong.  There are no US service members there.  I closed England and others as well, but I'm not anti-British."

Powell said that his and Hagel's job as CEO of the USO is to make sure that USO platforms are giving the most value for the private dollars that support them -- that the operations are "necessary and performing at a high standard."  He said that when Hagel came in as USO president, the organization was in "severe financial duress."  Powell said Hagel had to make tough calls.  In fact, while deciding to keep the Haifo USO facility open, Hagel closed 10 other operations in the region.

While Hagel took the USO from the edge of bankruptcy to restoring its financial legs, Powell expanded the USO's operating budget from less than $40 million a year to nearly $250 million in 2008.

Current USO President and CEO Sloan Gibson wrote this to me about Chuck Hagel's tenure at the organization:

Senator Hagel has been a steadfast supporter of our troops and their families for more than three decades, well beyond his own military service. He personally brought that strong commitment to the USO as CEO and President of the USO from 1987 to 1990.

Senator Hagel arrived at the USO during a fiscally tough time for the organization, and we have him to thank for leading the way back to financial health so that the USO could continue to provide its signature programs and services for America's troops and their families around the world. He kept the USO moving forward - just like the US military we serve.
The bottom line: Chuck Hagel kept the facility open and expanded it when he was restructuring and shifting priorities inside the USO to keep it alive.  If Hagel had had a deep anti-Israel bias, others would have seen it and reported it -- and the near bankruptcy of the organization as a whole would have given him more than enough cover to close the place if he felt that was needed, or what he personally desired.

A few years ago, I visited Hamburg, Germany as the guest of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and its International Political Dialogue Director Claus Gramckow.  As we drove by a building in the now very wealthy city, he lamented the closing years before of what he called "America House," a US-government supported facility that hosted events, a library, and resource center for Germans interested in knowing more about America. 

Gramckow said that we have to acknowledge that the world changes, that today that kind of center needs to shift to Kabul and Baghdad.  But still, some will lament and feel like a lesser priority when institutions like this close.  The same logic applies to America's USO operations -- loved or not -- in the parts of the world they are located.

Reading Tea Leaves of Political Appointments Not Yet Made

Is the White House side-stepping the Senate confirmation process in favor of letting a messy, sometimes ugly popularity contest drive its potential nominations?

Hagel and Obama.jpg
Reuters

Something rare just happened.  Rather than me having to dog various of the media handlers or key policy hands at the National Security Council or White House on whether Chuck Hagel is on or off the SecDef list, I just got a phone call from a senior Executive Branch person in the know who said something along the lines that the media are hyperventilating this thing into the wrong direction and that the process of considering nominees is proceeding in a way completely different than the media are telling it.  This person said Hagel is very much on the list.

I asked if Hagel had the edge in the process -- and got nothing more than the above. I was told that there were concerns about "stature" and "command capabilities" of the other publicly mentioned possibilities.

220px-Michele_Flournoy_official_portrait.jpgBut let's be blunt about something. I can't offer my source's name though can attest to the individual's proximity to some of the nominee discussions. Am I being spun?  Perhaps. The fact is that I did not solicit this particular call and this person has never tilted me wrong before. If Ashton Carter, Jack Reed, Colin Powell, or Michele Flournoy end up standing next to the president introduced as his next SecDef nominee, is the information I just received wrong?  Not necessarily. This is a process where shadows and nuance are the rule.

What has happened in this mess of leaked potential nominees to jobs is that the political advisers around the president are able to take the temperature of various institutions' love or hate of their candidates. I mention institutions rather that citizens because this is entirely an inside-the-Beltway sport. How much will Bill Kristol, the Republican Jewish Coalition and others put into the kitty to fight Hagel? How much is the president willing to invest -- even before a potential nomination reaches the kicking the tires phase?

It's fascinating to watch -- even if the anguish of pundits and media do reach the flamboyance of a Quentin Tarantino movie. The not-yet-nominated candidate for a position, in cases like Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel, are also barred by instruction and convention from defending themselves or saying much in public. This reminds me of a hilarious, anonymously written item run by The Washington Note titled, "To All Those Waiting for the Obama Team Phone Call."  The writer eventually did get quite a cool political appointment in the Obama administration -- and survived the torturous process.

220px-Ashton_Carter_DOD_photo.jpgBut what is weird about this process is that it starts with a couple of leaks and good journalism -- in the Hagel case with The Cable's Josh Rogin breaking the news that Chuck Hagel was being vetted for some job. And then on December 13th, Bloomberg's Hans Nichols broke the news that Hagel was President Obama's lead candidate for SecDef.

Then the neoconservative machinery cranked up -- with blasts from Bill Kristol with some key assists from Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer. Hagel's terrible commentary 14 years ago about the then-nomination process of out and proud James Hormel as America's first gay ambassador popped up to generate a wave of concern in the progressive community, most particularly from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Hagel apologized for those remarks. Hormel graciously and emphatically embraced Hagel's apology -- and I wrote what I know and shared what I had written years ago about Hagel's pro-LGBT rights stand. 

The Hagel nomination's seeming complexity -- hyped up by leading advocates of policies that "help Israel so much that it hurts," a term once shared with me by Ambassador and then Israeli Foreign Ministry Deputy Spokesman Gideon Meir about some the activities of diaspora support groups like AIPAC -- then began to lead political pundits to declare the Hagel nomination "toast", as Politico's Mike Allen did. U.S.-Israel negotiator Aaron David Miller arguing Hagel should not be toast. Others like MSNBC's Chris Matthews have said that the Hagel bubble has popped. 

Then Tom Friedman put wind in the sails of the Hagel nomination by saying that he deserved to run the Department of Defense and the President should choose him. Friedman writes for the world -- but also has a strong readership among the same people who vote for Chuck Schumer -- and the Schumer-Tom Friedman divide is key here. Ultimately, Friedman beats Schumer as his constituency is larger, and Friedman has more impact on the perception of Obama's successes and victories.  Senator Schumer will ultimately agree to disagree with a Presidential pick of Hagel and deal well with the White House on other fronts. And even then, as Chuck Hagel voted for John Bolton at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it's not so hard to imagine Schumer ultimately voting in favor of Hagel.

National Journal's Michael Hirsh read the tea leaves in a comment he got from the White House and reported that the Obama team was going wobbly on Hagel because of the line, "we are considering other candidates."  To my friend and colleague Hirsh this sounded like a comment he had received during the Susan Rice imbroglio in which an official had planted with him something along the lines that "the President was vexed between Susan Rice and John Kerry for the Secretary of State position."  To Hirsh, this seemed like a signal to Rice that the President wanted her to stand down.

The bottom line is that for those, even myself, who have argued that Hagel's nomination was still kicking, or withering, assumptions are being made about what would seem logical, what would a president faced with a neocon onslaught, lack of unanimity in the Senate, and the potential for yet another fight with the GOP (well, mostly the GOP) do when the Obama team may have thought this would be a smoother ride.

So, many are now thinking that of the two other leading candidates, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Michele Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and is the former president of the Center for a New American Security, Flournoy will get the nod. 

I listened to MSNBC commentator Krystal Ball chat with show anchor Karen Finney say that it would be awesome to have Flournoy because she was a mom and had kids -- and this would be a great signal to the country to have a woman in that key position. One part of me agrees that the appointment of Flournoy would break another glass ceiling for women, but there will be questions about both of these candidate's capabilities and perspectives as well that have not been scrutinized.

What are their views on Iran? Should we have bombed yesterday? On the Bob Gates view that anyone who would commit U.S. forces to large ground wars and occupations should have his or her head examined? On the privatization of the U.S. military so that despite spending gobs more money, the number of military personnel in uniform has declined while the contractor surge has grown unabated? How does one restructure the military in an age of budget austerity? Don Rumsfeld thought through some of this in his pre-9/11 tenure. What are their views?

Senator Jack Reed and former secretary of State Colin Powell have both been mentioned as well -- but both seem equally, personally committed to keeping their names off the list of likely choices.

What I heard from my executive branch source made a lot of sense to me today. That many in the punditocracy and D.C.'s strategic class are hyperventilating about these candidates and what we think Obama will do and won't do with scant evidence or commentary from the president or his team. The fact is that the White House has been highly cryptic at best about who is on the list and how they are proceeding.

If the White House does not go with Hagel, the Obama team has a problem as they will be appearing to reject a two-time Purple Heart recipient who was nearly a candidate for president of the United States, who served as a sergeant in Vietnam, and who believes that the Pentagon must be reshaped and remodeled to deliver security to the American public on leaner budgets. Hagel is a defense cuts guy -- and the person in this job will be spending 90 percent of his time not dealing with Israelis or other governments but wrestling with generals about how to rebalance America's national security priorities from low-return wars in the Middle East and South Asia to higher-return concerns in Asia. And they'd be conceding to a lot of folks whom the president just wiped the floor with in the last election.

Michael Hirsh has also raised the obvious but neglected point that Hagel is one who got the wars right -- in that they were bad wars -- and broke ranks with his party and pal John McCain in favor of the broader American national interest. Hirsh says he should not be punished for that -- but should be rewarded.

So, if the source I spoke to is right and the media discussion has distorted what is fantasy and fact and is now quite distant from what the real process is with President Obama and Chuck Hagel, all the better. 

We are still reading tea leaves in this appointment process -- which should be more transparent, managed in the halls of Congress in a legally scripted process, and less of a nightmare for the potential nominee.

Khalilzad: Hagel a Courageous Patriot Who Deserves SecDef Consideration

Zalmay Khalilzad says Chuck Hagel has "the courage of his convictions" and "deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense."

khailzad cpac.jpgReuters/Jonathan Ernst

Former George W. Bush administration US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan and the United Nations -- as well as former National Security Council Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs -- Zalmay Khalilzad shared with me some thoughts on the possible nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Khalilzad enjoys a distinguished record in national security circles, having also served as a long time senior analyst at the RAND Corporation.  He is widely considered to be a leading neoconservative thinker and policy practitioner and was an active supporter of the Bill Kristol/Robert Kagan-led Project for a New American Century, which provided the primary foundation for foreign policy-oriented neoconservatives during the Clinton era.

What follows are Ambassador Khalilzad's responses to questions I posed regarding Hagel.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

Khalilzad:  He is a patriot who has fought for his country. He is courageous and is not afraid to express his views--when when those views are not popular. I have not always agreed with Chuck Hagel's views. But I have always admired him for having the courage of his convictions.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel. Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests. Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying? Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel? Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

Khalilzad:  I have not heard him say anything that would indicate that he is an enemy of Israel.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families. Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying? Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?

Khalilzad:  He has apologized for his statement of some 14 years ago and has clarified his current position on this sensitive and important issue. That was a different era; the country as a whole has undergone enormous change on this matter, and so has he, it seems.

Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

Khalilzad:  He deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Former National Security Advisers Defend Chuck Hagel

Allies are pushing back at the character critique leveled at the former senator from Nebraska.
NSC Advisors.jpg

Below is a Letter to the Editor that rain in Washington Post yesterday, the 25th of December.  While this letter criticizes the Post for this article drawing a connection between Hagel's Vietnam experiences and his foreign policy views and defends Hagel's character, the letter also notably implies that the White House is too tolerant of the attacks on pontential Cabinet nominees.

Regarding the Dec. 21 front-page article "Vietnam scars still show in Hagel's policies": We strongly object, as a matter of substance and as a matter of principle, to the attacks on the character of former senator Chuck Hagel.

Mr. Hagel is a man of unshakable integrity and wisdom who has served his country in the most distinguished manner in peace and war. He is a rare example of a public servant willing to rise above partisan politics to advance the interests of the United States and its friends and allies. Moreover, it is damaging to the quality of our civic discourse for prospective Cabinet nominees to be subjected to such vicious attacks on their character before an official nomination.

This type of behavior will only discourage future prospective nominees from public service when our country badly needs quality leadership in government.

James L. Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci

The writers are former U.S. national security advisers.
What could really change the game for the White House choice of Leon Panetta's successor as Secretary of Defense? This article by Tom Friedman at the New York Times:  today, "Give Chuck a Chance."  I recommend a full read.

It makes it clear that attempts by the neoconservative community to portray monolithic Jewish-American opposition to Chuck Hagel's nomination just shattered.

Washington Roundup, Part 2: Arguments for and Against Chuck Hagel's Nomination

RTR20F67.jpg
Reuters

As part of the roundup of perspectives on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense, I have received the responses noted below. Here at The Atlantic is an earlier installment of views that included David Frum, Bing West, Ari Melber, Robert Dreyfuss, Hattie Babbitt, Ambassador James Hormel, Adam Garfinkle, and Leslie Gelb.

This installment includes questions I posed to Foreign Policy CEO David Rothkopf, Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Fellow Dan Glickman, Century Foundation Senior Fellow Jeffrey Laurenti, Harvard Kennedy School International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt, Cato Institute EVP David Boaz, former National Intelligence Council Chairman and former State Department Intel boss Thomas Fingar, and former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & South Asia and Georgetown University Visiting Professor Paul Pillar. Their responses follow beneath each question.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

My sense is that Hagel brings many strengths to the job of Secretary of Defense.  He is a thoughtful student of U.S. national security policy who, unlike many, is not easily categorized on a partisan or ideological basis.  In this respect, he is precisely the kind of independent thinker we need.  He also has proven to have the courage of his convictions, speaking his mind...as he did during the Iraq war...despite strong pressures against him.  This is precisely the kind of advisor any president needs.

Dan Glickman, former Member of Congress (R-KS); former Chairman, House Select Committee on Intelligence; former President, Motion Picture Association; Former US Secretary of Agriculture; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center.

I am not familiar enough with your questions to answer them specifically, but I have known Chuck from my days in Congress as his Kansas neighbor and during my time as USDA Secretary. I think Chuck has good midwestern values and a lot of common sense. I have always found him to be smart, decent, enthusiastic and desirous of America to be actively engaged in the world. I think would be a fair and thoughtful Secretary, if he is the President's choice. And his Vietnam combat service would send positive signals to the nation's military.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Strengths:  As a Republican former senator, he is able to bridge the polarization gap between a left-of-center Democratic administration and a strongly pro-military right-of-center Republican party in the Congress.  As a Vietnam war veteran (on the ground, not in the air!) he can speak to the citizenry that honors the shrinking minority of Americans who have actually been called to combat--and speak to them about the madness and futility of war fever that erupts like hot flashes in Washington from time to time.  He also has the bona fides from that experience for dealing with the military brass with credibility and independence.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

My best responses to this question are already posted on my blog at "Five Reasons Obama Should Pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef" and "The Art of the Smear."

I would only add that if Obama caves on this one, it will teach another generation of foreign policy experts that honest discourse about Israel is not possible.  And as Adam Garfinkle noted in The American Interest, this is likely to fuel great resentment and a nasty backlash down the road.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As my colleague Chris Preble wrote, Hagel's appointment "should be welcomed by anyone frustrated by years of war and foreign meddling, and out-of-control spending at the Pentagon. Which is to say, nearly everyone."

I think a senator who voted for the Iraq war and came to regret it probably reflects where a lot of the country is today. He's a combat veteran, a two-term senator, and a thoughtful participant in discussions of international issues for almost two decades. Also, he's a Republican. Indeed a conservative Republican. A small band of neoconservatives are trying to persuade Republicans not to support their former colleague. But to Republicans and independents across the country, he's a Republican senator. If Obama appoints Hagel Secretary of Defense, he will look impressively bipartisan. To most Americans, it will look like "a government of national unity" formed to deal with the aftermath of two wars.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Strengths include the fact that he served in the military--a long time ago and for only a short time.  The former attribute gives him knowledge about how a military organization works (his experience was in a pretty dysfunctional period); the latter gives him an "outsider's perspective."  He is obviously a smart guy willing to ask hard questions--something the next SECDEF will have to do in response to pleas from the services and the defense industry for "more" and "better" toys to deal with imagined enemies.

His congressional experience will help him--and DOD--to deal with strong actors and interests on the Hill who will resist necessary efforts to shrink the military, limit procurement of equipment, and close redundant facilities.  I think highly of Hagel's integrity, in part because of the position he took after Iraq began to go south in a big way.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel has distinguished himself as a straightforward and independent thinker, including especially on difficult Middle Eastern issues and issues involving defense spending.  These are exactly the qualities that are most needed today in the highest circles in the making of U.S. foreign and security policy.

As the first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense, he would bring to the job a valuable first-hand perspective on what it means to apply military force, and especially to apply it with American blood and treasure.  Perhaps a weakness is having less experience in bureaucratic management than some others might have--although he was successful in private business before entering government and was deputy head of the Veterans Administration.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel.  Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests.  Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?  Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

I believe the objections to Hagel based on his Israel positions should have no impact on how the President weighs his candidacy.  In the first instance they have been portrayed incorrectly by some as being anti-Israel when his view are far more nuanced and balanced than that.  Secondly, his actual views are the kind of pragmatic, ideology-free perspective that will be needed in the context of the new Middle East.  Thirdly, the President sets US policy for his team not the other way around.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?   No. Indeed, they seem to track closely with what most American professional military officers believe about the US-Israel relationship.

Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Preposterous

Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?    They appear to be consistent with what most American Middle-East policy mavens believe: a secure Israel and a secure Palestine living side-by-side will be essential for peace and security in a much roiled region.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

Hagel is certainly not an "enemy of Israel."  He understands that allies don't have to agree on everything, and that friendship sometimes means telling a friend what they need to hear.  He also understands that war with Iran is not a good idea, just as many Israeli national security experts do.   He is more of a friend to Israel than any of his critics.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Of course he's not an enemy of Israel. Are we really supposed to believe that he served two Senate terms from Nebraska and no one noticed he was an enemy of Israel? Hagel seems to understand that U.S. foreign policy must serve the interests of the United States, and that that probably means less promiscuous intervention. I think most Americans would welcome that approach. In addition, of course, he's going to serve the president and his policies.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Hagel is not anti-Israel.  That is a canard that should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant.  The position in question is the US Secretary of Defense.  Whoever holds the position will shape and implement US policy but will not do so independently.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel's views on these issues are refreshingly constructive and realistic.  It is absurd to label him as an enemy of Israel.  His positions on issues related to Israel are far more in the interests of the State of Israel than are the positions of his principal accusers.

The accusers confuse the interests of Israel with the wishes of the current right-wing Israeli government--which represent something very different and which are undermining the long-term prospects of a strong, democratic, Jewish state living at peace with its neighbors and with the international community.  Even without that confusion about Israeli interests, Americans should have a secretary of defense who puts U.S. interests above those of any foreign government.

It is absolutely astonishing that remarks by Senator Hagel indicating that he prioritizes U.S. interests in exactly that way are somehow held as a mark against him.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Ambassador James Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families.  Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying?  Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?


David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy
I personally am offended by Hagel's comments regarding Hormel.  I think they showed an unacceptable degree of prejudice.  But he has apologized for them and they were quite some time ago and therefore, if leading members of the LGBT community are willing to support his candidacy, I will defer to them on this.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Views on gays in the military or in the front lines of public service from the mid-1990s are no more disqualifying than a political figure's fervent opposition to legal access to abortion in the mid-1960s. Even Strom Thurmond ended up hiring black legislative aides -- and he had made a career of racism in politics; and in Hagel's case, battling gay equality was never central to his political identity. When cultural revolutions occur, people who were slow to embrace them at the start, but who finally catch on, are fully capable of adapting to the post-revolutionary landscape.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

I disagree vehemently with Hagel's remarks from a decade and a half ago.  They might be disqualifying if he still held them, but that does not seem to be the case.  The obvious thing to do is ask him.  If he is nominated, the Senators charged with approving the nomination should ask him too, and judge his answers.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Attitudes toward gay rights have changed a lot since 1998, which was just two years after 32 Democratic senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton boasted in his reelection campaign about signing it. Hagel says his own views have changed, and I take him at his word. Besides, he has received absolution from HRC -- what more can one ask?

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I personally think the treatment of Hormel was despicable and Hagel's behavior was unworthy of the man and his position, but one must recognize that politicians reflect and often pander to the prejudices of their constituents and that public attitudes were very different 14 years ago than they are today.  The country has moved far in a positive direction, on gender and many other issues.  So have Hagel and many other politicians.  He has apologized and the apology has been accepted.  I cannot imagine that he (or an other candidate for SECDEF) would, if confirmed, attempt to turn back the clock on a social issue that is so clearly going in the other direction.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

On issues of sexual preference the entire country has moved very far in the last 14 years.  Hagel has apologized, Hormel has accepted the apology, and this issue can be laid to rest.  It probably would be barely a blip in the current discourse were it not for the Israel-related drivers of the discourse.
Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

Personally, I think the president would be better off selecting Michele Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense.  She, in her work as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, her leadership at CNAS, and her prior work in the Defense Department during the Clinton Administration has proven herself to be an innovative thinker, a genuine student of strategy, tactics and emerging trends in international defense and a leader in the national security community.

She represents fresh perspectives, the voice of a rising generation of leaders and is well placed to help lead the transformation that our defense establishment must go through over the next decade.  Hagel would be an excellent candidate and a good Secretary of Defense.  She would, I think, be a better one.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

The next four years will be crucial for adapting the US military force structure to the profoundly changed international relations of the 21st century.  Hagel is one of the rare individuals who can navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of congressional passions, budgetary realities, and global commitments.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

No matter what he does in terms of overall Middle East policy, the Hagel nomination gives Barack Obama an opportunity to strike a blow for a more open discourse on these important issues.  If he nominates Hagel, he will demonstrate that reasonable people can disagree about certain aspects of U.S. Middle East policy, and that U.S. policymakers do not have to slavishly kowtow to AIPAC's hardline.

If Obama caves to the Israel lobby yet again, he will ensure the failure of his efforts to restore the U.S. position in the region and to prevent Israel from becoming an apartheid state.   And his own legacy will be tarnished, perhaps irretrievably.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As Chris Preble says, I hope "that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions." And maybe even that, as a midwestern conservative, he'll advise against military actions undertaken without congressional authorization, such as President Obama's intervention in Libya.

We need to finish getting out of two decade-long wars, avoid new ones, and chart a foreign policy for a changed world. I hope that Hagel could help move the administration and the country in the direction of prudent and realistic policies, and sensible reductions in our vastly increased military budget.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I am struck by the criticism that has not appeared, or at least not in places that I have seen.  For example, no one is criticizing him for what I would consider more serious problems such as being in the pocket of particular defense contractors, having a jingoistic attitude on foreign policy issues and determination to use the US military as a global police force or quasi-imperial tool of American hegemony.

Hagel's balanced, reasoned approach and integrity are his strong suits and no one has challenged them in a convincing way.  Nor has anyone tried, except with the charge of being anti-Israel (the most important requirement for a SECDEF is that he/she be pro-American) and the charge of homophobia.

Paul Pillar
, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Look, we all know perfectly well what this furor is about.  It is another instance of a springing into action of elements that are so determined to prevent any significant questioning of destructive Israeli policies, or of U.S. tolerance of those policies, that they will use whatever means necessary--including, as in this case, the slandering of a distinguished public figure--to try to keep such questioning from being uttered by anyone in high public office and to keep from office those who look like they may actually raise such questions.

With Hagel there is the added dimension--involving some of the same elements--that he is seen as a turncoat for acknowledging that the Iraq War was a disastrous mistake and for endorsing Obama.  Otherwise this is a replay of what was done a few years ago to Chas Freeman.  Given the salience of the campaign against Hagel, as I have observed, there is now more at stake than just who will head the Department of Defense for the next four years.  The issue is one of whether this kind of intimidation and the scurrilous tactics that go along with it will be allowed to prevail.

Washington Roundup: Arguments for and Against Chuck Hagel's Nomination

nebraska-senator-chuck-hagel.jpgI have gathered some more views on Chuck Hagel's potential -- and challenged -- nomination to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Politico's Mike Allen is calling the nomination "toast" after Senator Chuck Schumer refused to say he would vote in favor of him. Remember that Senator Schumer -- who has many views of which I'm supportive -- nonetheless said in a Senate Democratic Caucus on one occasion, "a vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel." Bolton never got his confirmation vote, though he did serve as a recess-appointed Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations.

Officialportrait.jpgBut while Schumer hasn't said this, one can easily imagine him informally telegraphing to his colleagues that "a vote for Hagel is a vote against Israel."

Both are untrue of course. Whether Bolton had been confirmed or not as US Ambassador, he like other US Ambassadors is a steadfast defender of the US-Israel alliance. Chuck Hagel too would be a steadfast defender of an alliance that matters. The dividing line is whether one starts from the prism of U.S. security interests -- or starts with the Israel portal instead, or sees no line at all between them. No differences. 

In my view, Hagel is one of the smartest, most experienced strategists around today -- true to the strategic needs of a country in a fragile time.  He also has real combat experience under his belt -- having returned a sergeant from Vietnam 44 years ago this month.

Here are some other views that I have pulled together:

James C. Hormel, former US Ambassador to Luxembourg, challenged by Hagel in 1998 as being an inappropriate representative of the US because he was "aggressively homosexual", writes at his Facebook page:
Senator Hagel's apology is significant -- I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything.  While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal -- they are a clear apology. 

Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted.  Perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too.  His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. 

Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families.  If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, i would support his nomination.
Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, former international affairs columnist for the New York Times, and columnist at Newsweek/DailyBeast sent this comment to me:

I am strongly supportive of Chuck Hagel for SecDef, and I strongly back him despite my disagreement with him on a number of issues. I'm for him because he's been right about some of the most critical issues of our time like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the need to talk to and negotiate with adversaries (though again, I differ with him about Hamas).

He's also dead right about the pentagon budget being bloated. in the foreign policy community, these calls take great courage. to me, we need someone who can say hard truths to power at the National Security Council.
David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and contributing editor at Newsweek/DailyBeast:

What I find most dismaying about the debate over Senator Hagel is the utter absence from the public discussion of any mention of the single most important issue facing the next secretary of defense: how to preside over what will likely be the steepest military build-down since the 1970s with minimum harm to military capabilities.

There's nothing in the Hagel record to indicate that he brings any relevant experience or skills to this problem. I find it baffling that President Obama would short-list him for the defense position. I'd feel the same way if Chuck Hagel were B'nai Brith's man of the year.

Senator Hagel's supporters offer a case in his favor that would superbly qualify him as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Nixon administration. But that's not the job we're talking about.
Robert Dreyfuss, correspondent for The Nation, writes:

It's a sad commentary on both Barack Obama and the state of Democratic Party politics and its national security wing that the president, once again, is considering naming another Republican as secretary of defense. You'll recall that in 2009, Obama let Robert Gates, the Republican who served George W. Bush, stay on at the Department of Defense. Not that Gates was a neocon--no, far from it. But he was certainly drawn from the center-hawkish part of the American national security establishment, whose Democratic ranks include such execrable luminaries as Sam Nunn and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This time, it's Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican--who, 'tis true, might be flirting with becoming a Democrat, since he seems to think that the GOP has moved so far right that he can't even see its outer edges from Nebraska, his home state. It would be nice if Obama could find a liberal Democrat to run the Pentagon, someone who'd oversee the massive cuts in military outlays that are long past due, and who'd shut down the infatuation with the Special Forces, the drones and the "pivot" to the Pacific and East Asia.

But no, it's Hagel, it appears--someone whose decided tilt against Israel and its omnipresent allies in the Israel lobby (or, as Hagel calls it, the "Jewish lobby") is a strong point in his favor, especially if the United States is to avoid going to war against Iran in Obama's second term.

In any case, the Israel lobby--which, naturally, doesn't exist, and certainly, if it existed, would not call itself the Jewish lobby--is mobilizing all neoconservative hands on deck to stop Obama from picking Hagel.

On those grounds alone, I'm for Hagel.

Harriet "Hattie" Babbitt, former Deputy Administrator of USAID and Vice Chair, World Resources Institute wrote this:

Chuck Hagel's evolution on LGBT issues is a thing to be celebrated, not seen as a disqualification.  A failure to evolve would be a disqualification.
 
He should consider a  statement along the lines of, "Gay men and women in our military have proved themselves to be patriots and important members of our military.  As the recent examinations of their contributions have shown, a policy of exclusion would harm the combat readiness and the security of the United States. As Secretary of Defense, I would welcome their participation at every level of the armed forces."

Bing West, former Asst. Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and military author, writes in:

Hagel is overtly seeking the post. The Pentagon faces unremitting crises overseas and steep budgetary cuts.  The Pentagon needs a secretary who reluctantly accepts the position for the greater good, not for his own ego.

Adam Garfinkle, executive editor of The American Interest writes at his excellent blog, The Middle East and Beyond:

So, I am given to understand that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, which more or less boils down to its national director Abe Foxman's personal view of the planet from his Manhattan bubble, is not thrilled with the prospective (not even real yet) nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. According to Foxman, Hagel is not pro-Israel or anti-Iran enough for the job. Foxman has accused Hagel of invoking stereotypes that suggest not just anti-Israel attitudes but even anti-Semitism. He used the record of an interview Hagel gave to Aaron David Miller a few years back (more about that anon) when he was writing The Much Too Promised Land (2008) to support his accusation.

It's sort of ironic that an organization with the phrase "anti-defamation" in its own name should resort to defaming others. Well, maybe "ironic" isn't quite the right word; a few others also come to mind. But defamation it is, because the idea that Chuck Hagel is either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic is risible. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Foxman doesn't understand how much damage he does by tossing around such innuendo. It's even clearer that he doesn't want my advice. (I met him years ago within the confines of a closed meeting, but that's another story.) The damage done, and how it is done, is not clear to everybody, however--hence this note.

As it happens, Senator Hagel is in very good company as one of Mr. Foxman's targets. Another of those targets has been none other than Harry Truman.

Ari Melber, a contributor to MSNBC and contributing editor at The Nation, writes in an email:

No matter who wins the election, it seems like Republicans are always on the short list to run the Pentagon. If a policymaker with Hagel's exact background had a "D" next to his (or her) name, can anyone imagine that person even being considered for this job? 

Chuck Hagel, John Kerry: Is Obama Too Reliant on Senate Talent?

I've reached out to a wide range of policy experts, pundits, and government officials (current and former) to share their thoughts on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. I should note that my Atlantic Media colleague Michael Hirsh has published a powerful piece at National Journal indicating that the White House is considering a number of candidates, and not just Hagel. 

I think that the discussion about Hagel is important and a learning moment about national security strategy, about the future of the Pentagon and the kinds of wars we have been engaged in abroad, and about the nomination process itself run out of the White House.

RicksTom_WEB_PT.jpgTom Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has worked for both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and who has written some of the best accounts of America's command leadership in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars also serves as Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy. He also writes the blog, Best Defense

Ricks shared the following thoughts on Hagel in response to questions I posed:

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?
 
Ricks:  I cannot remember another modern administration that pulled almost all its top national security officials from the Congress. Right now we have former members of Congress as the secretary of defense, secretary of state, president, and vice president. They are advised by a national security advisor and deputy national security advisor with backgrounds as Capitol Hill staffers. And now the president is said to be considering replacing the current people at State and Defense with two other senators -- John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
 
Wait a minute. I thought diversity was a good thing! How about some people with backgrounds in academia (such as William Perry, who was a fine secretary of defense, or George Shultz), corporate America (such as David Packard), Wall Street (see Robert Lovett), the law (Edwin Stanton, Henry Stimson, Caspar Weinberger), career-track federal service (Robert Gates), or the military (George Marshall or Colin Powell)? How about people who have actually run something (members of Congress don't run anything but their offices).
 
President Obama's nightmare is said to be following in the tracks of LBJ -- that is, having a great domestic agenda undercut by backing into war. But he might pay more attention to JFK, who had a narrow team of advisors who thought they were smarter than everyone else. I think Obama is unnecessarily creating a vulnerability -- that is, why voluntarily wear blinders by getting people largely experienced in one relatively small aspect of the world? There is a reason that diversity is not just right but also smart practice. You'd think Obama would understand that.
It is interesting that if Hagel was nominated, President Obama would have three of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleagues close at hand -- Joe Biden, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Fascinating comment from Tom Ricks. More to come.

The Chuck Hagel I Know: A Staunch Defender of Gay Rights

As his comments about an "aggressively gay" ambassador nominee come under scrutiny, it's important to look at his recent record -- and keep communication open.

Hagel Steve Clemons Hauser.JPG
Senator Chuck Hagel hasn't 
spent much time at Human Rights Campaign dinners. I wish he had gone -- or better yet, had been invited by the organization to speak and share his views on gays in American life.

But the HRC has not invited him to speak and to my knowledge has made little effort to inquire about what his views about LGBT rights are, either of him or of gays who know him (like yours truly).

Hagel is a national leader who in his role as co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board has been focused on key problems in synthesizing and managing national intelligence. He thinks about men and women serving the nation being put in harm's way for the wrong reasons and in wars that could have been avoided. His humanism percolates through a national-security filter -- rather than having been a gay-rights advocate who then thought about national-security questions.

But Chuck Hagel is pro-gay, pro-LGBT, pro-ending "don't ask, don't tell. The only problem is that no one asked him his views lately -- including the president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Chad Griffin, the new and brilliant HRC president, has challenged the potential defense secretary nominee because of statements Hagel made in 1998 about then-ambassador nominee James Hormel. Hagel said that Hormel as "openly, aggressively gay" should not represent the United States. Indeed, these are worrisome words from someone 14 years ago -- but in that time period, the world has changed. It should be remembered that just two years previously, U.S. Senator Sam Nunn -- who has done so much to rid the world of dangerous nuclear weapons related materials -- had fired two of his own staff members when he learned they were gay. He viewed them as potential national-security risks. 

Bill Clinton didn't have the same views of gays then that he does today. Nor did Sally Field, who gave a stunningly powerful talk at the HRC dinner this year publicly embracing her gay son and LGBT rights.

Another frequent HRC standout -- Dustin Lance Black, the brilliant screenwriter of the movie Milk -- is off to Salt Lake City to meet with and see people whose views today may have evolved over the last 14 years but have a very long way to go, he suggested when I ran into him at Reagan National Airport. As Black said so passionately at this year's HRC dinner, gays and friends of the LGBT community need to reach out to people: Let them know we are gay and yet professional, gay and yet mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, gay and yet serving this nation in battlefields and as park rangers and in community centers. But the key part of this is reaching out, asking where people are on these issues, and engaging them.

To my knowledge -- and I'm pretty well informed about all things Hagel -- this outreach did not occur with Hagel. Concerned gays are hyperventilating that as a Republican, he might come in and undo the gains on gay rights that have been achieved in the Pentagon.

Again, I am a big fan of HRC and Chad Griffin. I have gone to the last couple of HRC dinners as the guest of the managing partner of the mega-law firm Paul Hastings -- a straight and happily married Republican who supported Mitt Romney but is steadfastly committed to human rights and to LGBT equality. Paul Hastings is the major underwriter of the HRC dinner, and I hope that Chad Griffin or the firm invite Hagel and his wife to sit at their table and have a conversation on these issues.

Had Hagel been invited he would have told the audience that he valued each and every man and woman who chose to serve this nation, on the battlefield and in other capacities -- regardless of his or her ethnic background, sexual identity, or religion. I'm not sure where Hagel stands on same-sex marriage, but I know that he supports solid legal protections for gay families and is personally supportive of gays and lesbians.

How do I know this? Because I'm a national-security wonk who happens to be gay and who happens to have interacted with and followed Chuck Hagel for years. I have spoken directly about these issues with him over the years -- once for more than an hour by phone from the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. 

I wrote about this experience for The Washington Note, reflecting on how my partner and I early in our relationship had stumbled into a New Year's Eve travel package that placed us amidst 1,000 straight couples celebrating there. Each couple got a top hat and tiara ... we needed two top hats. No dice. We quickly escaped the dinner and went into a lounge with a fantastic, black jazz-singing diva who invited us to sit in the front. Then, to my surprise as I didn't really know him well, White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and his wife hung out with us, loving the jazz, and were more embracing and warm to both of us than I had ever experienced in a straight crowd. 

It just so happened I was invited about 18 years after that night to speak at the World Affairs Council of Colorado Springs -- and staying at the Broadmoor again brought back those memories. The hotel was packed with evangelicals there for a massive Bible-study exercise. That night Hagel and I spoke by phone at length about the wars, about his concerns for the country and for soldiers and their plight. We talked about his interaction with the administration. And we talked about my memories of that night at the Broadmoor nearly two decades earlier, and my own hope that don't ask, don't tell would end. I told him how I thought that the ongoing purges against gay translators, particularly gay Muslim translators, working on national-intelligence cables was outrageous.

We talked about this stuff. At some point, Hagel, although he was not in Congress when the legislation passed, may have been a supporter of don't ask, don't tell, but as of a couple of years ago he was not. He believed that we owed more to those who were climbing up hill to fight for this nation, who were climbing up a hill to be fairly and legally committed to the ones they loved, who were climbing up a hill to be treated fairly at work and to raise children in a loving and accepting environment.

This is the Chuck Hagel I have come to know and have respected for so many years.

Hagel has lunch with Vice President Biden about once a month. They don't tell others about it -- but they are best friends. Hagel once donned a Joe Biden mask in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Halloween wearing a t-shirt labeled "Vote for Me" -- when Biden was getting ready (again) to run for president. When Biden opened the door on Meet the Press on gay marriage -- saying that he had "absolutely no problem" with gay marriage -- I'm guessing Biden and Hagel chatted about it.

Biden doesn't tolerate bigots or racists or people who are locked in anachronistic sensibilities, at least not on his own time. Hagel had evolved privately on these issues -- but again, no one had asked him his views. I ran into the senator one night with his wife, Lilibet, at a dinner where the Nixon Center was being renamed the Center for the National Interest. I was serving as the master of ceremonies for the evening -- which featured public addresses by James Schlesinger, John McCain, and John Kyl among others. Hagel, Bob Gates, Brent Scowcroft and a cross-section of D.C.'s foreign-policy elite were there -- my guess, 80 percent Republican. To my surprise and quite publicly, Hagel grabbed my hand, shook it, introduced me to his wife -- and as he had to get going, gave me a manly style hug in front of quite a number of those mentioned above, including Scowcroft and Bob Gates. 

That's right. Hagel hugged an out gay man in a tuxedo at a mostly Republican gathering on national security. I wish I had been able to -- or had thought to -- share much of this with Chad Griffin and those in the LGBT community who had been harboring fears about Chuck Hagel.

All I can say is that like so many who are embracing our community today -- people like Mike Bloomberg, like Ted Olson, like Grover Norquist (yes, he is very supportive of gays in the Republican Party) -- there are Republicans whose views have evolved a lot in 14 years.

And like Dustin Lance Black said at the HRC dinner this year, we need to reach out to everyone.

HRC's strident challenge was an unfortunate and in my view, unwarranted, attack on the character and humanity of Hagel. I hope Chad Griffin, who thus far has been an outstanding leader for HRC best I can see, walks this back in a dignified way -- and asks Senator Chuck Hagel, I hope Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, to speak at next year's Human Rights Campaign gala dinner. It would be awesome in fact to see Hormel and Hagel on stage together. That's something to think about.

I should note as well that Chuck Hagel has issued a public apology to Ambassador Hormel and LGBT Americans for his insensitive remarks of fourteen years ago and expressed strong support for "open service" in the military as well as for LGBT "military families."

Chuck Hagel will be strongly supportive of the gains of the LGBT community in our national life -- and particularly in our military and intelligence services -- if indeed, President Obama nominates this great strategic and military thinker to succeed Leon Panetta.

Remember When Chuck Hagel Voted for AIPAC-Supported John Bolton?

hagel twn clemons dc.jpgChuck Hagel voted in favor of John Bolton's nomination before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This is important history as many attempting to sabotage Hagel's potential nomination as secretary of defense are hyping his reticence about unilateral sanctions against rogue nations and his refusal to jump on a couple of hug-Israel resolutions. 

The Bolton nomination was important because it was a high priority "get" by the hawkish wing of the hug-Israel-tightly lobby. I worked hard then, in 2005, against Bolton's nomination by President George W. Bush because I saw Bolton as the vanguard of an emergent class of Jesse Helms-inspired pugnacious nationalists who had deep disdain for and resentment against international institutions and treaties. Their paranoia about the UN has led to moments like the recent Senate rejection of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities.

Those who see being pro-Israel as giving in to an emotionalism that draws no lines at disruptive and reckless Israeli behavior wanted John Bolton badly, and I did my best to sway Chuck Hagel on his vote. I failed. Hagel voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of Bolton -- while Ohio Republican George Voinovich refused to endorse.

In later stages of the John Bolton battle, Senator Chuck Schumer made the statement in a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting that "a vote against Bolton was a vote against Israel." Schumer, who strongly supported Bolton, was wrong on that front. Every U.S. ambassador to the UN has been a friend to Israel and has been supportive of Israel's security interests. Every U.S. president has been supportive of Israel's core security interests -- but there are legitimate differences on what pro-Israel means. 

Avigdor Lieberman, until this week Israel's foreign minister, has a history of making disgusting, bigoted comments about Palestinians and Arabs. He is a disgrace to Israel -- and I find it objectionable that he sat in the Israeli cabinet at the right hand of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. My stating that I find one, or even a few, of the leaders of Israel to be short-sighted, wrong-headed, and ultimately reckless about the security and interests of their own nation does not make me or anyone an anti-Semite or anti-Israel. I had respect for Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni -- and have grown to respect a number of the positions of Ariel Sharon. 

But Chuck Hagel voted for John Bolton, who just before his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that there is no moral equivalence between innocents killed in Lebanon during Israel's strike there and those Israelis who may have been killed by Hezbollah incursions into Israel. Again, I'm disgusted by what were Bolton's public remarks -- which the State Department had the good sense to excise from his testimony moments before he gave it (issuing one set of remarks with the statements and then another without).

But Chuck Hagel voted for the guy Chuck Schumer wanted. And that AIPAC wanted. And that Israel itself no doubt wanted.

Bolton got a recess appointment -- but he never got his confirmation vote. And who was the block on this great friend of Israel and anti-United Nations crusader? 

Not Chuck Hagel. Try Senator Joseph Lieberman, who refused to vote in favor of cloture because the executive branch would not share vital but classified information with Congress -- either in the base-relocation debate or in the Bolton case. Then-Senator Lincoln Chafee gave another assist at the final stage of the battle -- but the three senators who got in the way of the AIPAC-desired John Bolton were George Voinovich, Joseph Lieberman, and Lincoln Chafee.

Not Chuck Hagel. 

Hagel's instabake critics need to read up on some history and some facts about the man. It's irresponsible of the Wall Street Journal and other publications to cast around the slanderous accusation of anti-Semitism, which is akin to bigotry and racism, when there are legitimate policy differences about Israel policy involved. 

Hagel has been a steadfast supporter of Israel and its interests -- and has been the kind of friend to step back and not support Israel's U.S. congressional machinery when it is hyperventilating in ways that hurt it. 

Hagel is a genuine friend of Israel's long-term interests and believes that the status quo in Israel today is undermining Israel's status as a democratic and Jewish state. Controversial statement? Just about every responsible Israeli political official has said exactly the same.

Mohammed Morsi: Abe Lincoln in Disguise or Another Mubarak?

At this point, we don't really know if Morsi is on a path to installing himself as a "new pharaoh" or whether he is genuinely trying to build a more inclusive Egypt.

Thumbnail image for morsi mubarak 2.jpg

Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters

"I am the president of the Arab Republic of Egypt, clothed in immense power!" one can imagine Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi thinking after his jaw-dropping power grab these last few days.

Of course this is parody of the words roared by President Abraham Lincoln in Spielberg's stunning film, Lincoln, as the 16th American president ground down by a four-year, bloody civil war spent the entirety of his political capital procuring Constitutionally-based freedom for millions of American slaves. 

At this point, we really don't know if President Morsi is actually planning to install himself as what Nobel Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has called a "new pharaoh" -- or whether he has committed to an inclusive democratic vision for Egypt which he believes requires extraordinary measures, much like those Abraham Lincoln took while manipulating pols of his day, procuring votes through patronage and threat. 

The fact is that while Morsi has declared himself, at least for the moment, the maker of law, the implementer of law, and the overseer of himself who makes the law, his rhetoric is highly inclusive. He has frustrated many in the Muslim Brotherhood by not moving to establish more of a theocratic state and not moving against other of the newly established political parties and movements in the country. At a public level, Morsi says he is acting on behalf of all Egyptians -- not just those who are tied to the Brothers. 

Morsi states that he is moving to reduce the authority and influence of those loyal to former President Hosni Mubarak -- and that first the army and then the courts have been havens for protectors of the old regime's interests. 

Is Morsi the kind of leader who will aggrandize total power and then liberalize like a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? Or is he more like a Lee Kuan Yew who can build a state and the facade of a democratic system while holding tightly to power for decades in all ways that matter? 

We don't know the answer yet. But for those surprised by Morsi's moves -- as the State Department reportedly was after having just secured his pivotal support on a Gaza-Israel truce -- only naivete would lead one to believe that a healthy, balanced, checks-and-balance democracy would immediately succeed the kind of autocracy Mubarak mastered. 

Despite the claims in the media today that Egypt's judiciary was fairly independent and respected, the fact is that the system -- all parts of it, including the judiciary -- were ruthlessly managed and sculpted by forces that stewarded Mubarak's interests and power.

There were no checks and balances in Egypt during Mubarak; nor during de facto head of state General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi's short reign; and for the time being, there will be no checks and balances during Mohammed Morsi's tenure -- at least not in this phase. 

Given the conditions of Egypt's rotten political culture that are turbulent and unstable, it seems ridiculous to think that an Egyptian leader -- whether religious or devoutly secular, whether a man or a woman -- would automatically and successfully move the Egyptian political architecture into one based on checks and balance statecraft. 

This doesn't mean that the protests against Morsi in Tahrir Square are wrong or illegitimate. They are in fact vital in the absence of other political checks on Morsi. Note this excellent survey of the scene by David Rohde.

In a political system that has not been forged over decades and centuries of constitutional battle about the rights and prerogatives of branches of government, perhaps the people must rise in such a delicate time to empower other branches of government, while communicating what they believe to be the limits of Egyptian presidential powers. In other words, this conflict was inevitable: a new President whose party had been suborned and abused by the previous political order, mistrustful of institutions derived from that preceding era, is working to sweep aside those institutions and the people in them like any powerful executive would. 

In a system of checks and balances, other parts of the political order rise to challenge the executive, vigorously defending their own turf and legitimacy. The people must allow both sides, or all three or four or five, sides in the institutional square-off to ultimately win, so that institutions are balanced each other not because they want to be but because there is no choice. 

That is the strength and delicacy of democracy -- and Egypt is not nearly there yet. 

The United States is in the proverbial glass house on this one as its own demonstration of a system of checks and balances is at a darker stage at the moment, when parties seem to relish strangling the interests of the state and the people rather than compromising across political lines. The world today sees a victorious American President stymied almost immediately by challenges to his choice (Susan Rice) for Secretary of State as well as what looks to be a high-stakes game of brinksmanship over a tax and spending deal, or alternatively framed, an ideological train wreck going over what has become called "the fiscal cliff." 

The U.S. does have an active and vigorous system of checks and balances which can paralyze and stifle progress at times -- while at others, enabling enormous leaps forward as reminded by the Spielberg film's depiction of Lincoln ruthlessly securing passage of the slavery-banning 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

There have been numerous other times in U.S. history when a president or other Congressional leaders spent a vast amount of capital defying what many believed to be the immutable laws of political gravity as they then saw them. Universal suffrage was achieved this way. The nation's bipartisan commitment to advanced national security science and technology spending the same. Civil rights and voting rights for African Americans achieved. Educational fairness for women. Don't ask, Don't Tell's repeal. Major health policy reform during President Obama's last term. The passage of controversial nuclear arms reduction treaties. The list is longer than many might expect -- but each of these battles was extraordinarily difficult. 

Those working hard to secure democracy by putting their jobs, reputations, and sometimes lives on the line -- particularly as we saw and continue to see in Tahrir Square -- know how hard it is to really achieve. The bottom line is that democratic practice depends on institutions evolving side by side, each challenging over and over again the rights and prerogatives, and terms of authority of each other in front of the public eye. 

Egyptian President Morsi today says that he is committed to democracy and the rights of all Egyptians. He very well could be a power-hungry liar deceiving the nation as many other heads of state have done in the past. On the other hand, he may be telling the truth. 

The public's interests are not well served by giving Morsi the benefit of the doubt. The public should protest and should remind him from whence power in the nation is really derived. People should demand their rights; should demand a non-corrupt and fair judiciary; an impartial police and security apparatus. But these things will not happen because Morsi is a benign or generous leader or has a vision of how to fairly evolve and develop the power of other branches of government not under his control. 

These judges and their institutions; and then legislators; and perhaps generals must engage and secure their place in the democratic government equation. Indeed for Morsi to become a great leader and deliver on democracy and the successful transition from a dark era to a better one for Egypt, he needs to continue to challenge other weak or rotten sectors of society and should at the same time welcome the institutional battles that will ultimately limit his power. 

This is what the people need to focus on and deliver. Revolution is always difficult. But knocking a leader from power is fundamentally a binary process -- a zero or a one. But it is the combination of impulses, competition for power in government, and a more nuanced, and complex balancing of institutionalized political equities that ultimately delivers democracy to a people. 

After President Barack Obama's 2008 election when he was propelled to massive victory in part by standing as a refreshing foil to what many perceived to be the power-usurping White House of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, I asked former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta what powers he thought an Obama White House would forfeit back. Podesta candidly and honestly replied, "Very few, if any." 

This is the reality of executives that run governments everywhere. Their job is not to balance the various powers of government as a goal unto itself. They tend to want to be monarchs, achieving their vision as they see it for the benefit of the nation -- or all too often for themselves personally or the clans they represent. 

Those who want to build democracy must shore up the other branches of government -- generals who will secure the interests of the military, smart policy-practitioning legislators who will protect their institutional power, judges unafraid of other branches of government. Achieving equilibrium among these conflicting corners is how democracy is ultimately forged -- and leaders like Morsi if they are true to their democratic rhetoric will both wince at the costs that come from other power centers and welcome their engagement. 

Ed Gillespie's Absurd Bluster


I don't have a clip of Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton, David Axelrod, or other Democratic Party heavyweights crowing that Barack Obama will "win definitively" over Mitt Romney in today's election. Perhaps they are out there -- but the Obama communications machine has not sent me such statements.

In contrast, the Romney campaign just sent me this irrationally exuberant claim from former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie that Romney will clobber Obama decisively today.

Here is the statement and the YouTube post:
The fact is, we can't afford four more years like the last four years. And Governor Romney has been out there putting forward a positive vision and a plan to turn the economy around, to create 12 million jobs, unleash domestic energy, get us to a balanced budget. That's why he's got momentum here on election day. And I think that's why he's going to win tonight, not just win, but win decisively. I don't think there's going to be any doubt at the end of tonight who the next president is going to be.
Please. I like Gillespie and appreciate his loyalty to Romney. That said, I think that people in positions of leadership like him need to restore some honesty and occasional objectivity to political commentary.

It is most likely that neither Obama nor Romney will beat the other decisively. A close race has been brewing for a long time -- and Gillespie knows it's tight. It is wrong for either side to describe the situation in the nation as anything other than divided.

There will be a winner, but the divided aspirations and perspectives in the country deserve more respect and affirmation than Gillespie offered today.

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt

Republican presidents have added far more to federal debt levels than Democrats, as a percent of GDP. But Obama's joined Reagan, the Bushes and Ford in the debt-raising camp.

Ronald Reagan.jpgPhil McCarten/Reuters
In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.

Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

Who reduced debt as a percentage of GDP the most?

Total Increase in debt to GDP overall.jpgWhen comparing by presidential term as in the chart to the side (click image to make larger), the big winner is Harry Truman, followed by Bill Clinton.  Eisenhower is next, followed by Johnson and Nixon, the Kennedy, and finally Jimmy Carter. All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP.

While absolute levels of debt may have been growing through much of this period (though not all), what really matters is what percentage of GDP that debt represents. Most U.S. presidents have been able to keep the debt to GDP ratio declining -- but in the very modern era, since 1980, only Bill Clinton has succeeded in massively decreasing America's federal debt to GDP levels.

Debt to GDP per annum.jpgWhen considering it on a per annum basis, the chart of presidential debt-reducers and debt-increasers remains mostly the same, though Barack Obama wins among those adding to the debt load with a per annum increase in debt to GDP of 12 percent. Ronald Reagan is next at 7 percent. As shown in the chart to the left, Truman and Clinton still clobber other presidents in terms of a per annum decrease in federal debt to GDP. 

When looking at the charts this way, it is fascinating to see what a stand-out the Bill Clinton presidency was in balancing the budget and achieving revenue surpluses. 

These data sets were assembled by a close collaborator and credit expert Richard Vague as part of a larger history of debt project that he and I are working on.

As the debates on who is responsible for the levels of federal debt continue to play out in the next 10 days before the election and the 66 days before the US hits a fiscal cliff, remember that the worst contributors to America's debt load were mostly GOP presidents -- with the single exception of Obama, who had a global economic tsunami crashing in on the White House and nation when he took the helm.

VP Debate: Where Was the Gay-Marriage Question?

bidenheavens.banner.reuters.jpg
Reuters

While Martha Raddatz was masterful last night actually moderating a genuine and thoughtful debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, she failed to pose a key question to the contenders: What is your view on same-sex marriage?

Some will say, well, there are a long list of issues she had to get in the mix -- Afghanistan, the Libya debacle, abortion a few times, the economy, Medicare -- and that is true. But the issue of gay marriage is one that matters in this election, and it was not mentioned at all in either the first presidential debate or the standoff between Biden and Ryan.

Biden was the person who kicked open the door on this subject in this election by stating he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriages. For a couple of days at least, the public divide between Obama and Biden was wider than on any other issue since they had been in office -- a greater chasm between them than on Afghanistan policy where their differences were known but sewn together as a process leading to a conclusion everyone supported. 

Many argued at the time that Obama coming out days after Biden in support of gay marriage would cost him North Carolina. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have decidedly different views on the subject and oppose same-sex marriage, and even civil unions.

With gay marriage is being considered this season on state ballots across the United States -- and with the man who played a star role in kicking the civil-rights battle forward sitting on stage in Danville -- Raddatz should have queried them publicly on the movement broadening traditional marriage.

The final presidential debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer, will focus on foreign policy and international security, so unless he asks how gay soldiers and Marines are doing fulfilling their SEAL team duties, the question won't come up then. That leaves it to the citizens gathered on October 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, for a town-hall debate to do what Jim Lehrer and Raddatz did not manage to do and pose this question. (CNN's Candy Crowley will moderate.)

Many of the divisions between Romney-Ryan and Obama-Biden on national security and the economy are overstated. They are both pretending at the moment to be more hawkish on China than they really are. As Ryan said last night, core national interests and assessment of the unique circumstances of every conflict in the Middle East would guide a Romney White House's decision to deploy force -- which is exactly the position of the Obama White House.

But on gay marriage, their are substantial differences, and America should learn more about the rationale each side has for their positions.

Mitt Romney, George Marshall, and Israel-Palestine

truman israel.jpgDuring a major foreign policy address earlier today at the Virginia Military Institute, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid tribute to one of the school's most distinguished graduates, former Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State as well as Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall.

Romney said of Marshall that he "helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war."

What he didn't share about General Marshall was that he vehemently opposed recognizing Israel and instead favored U.N. trusteeship after British withdrawal slated for midnight, the 14th of May, 1948. 

As reported in a fascinating historical snippet by the late Richard Holbrooke, who helped organize presidential adviser Clark Clifford's papers for a co-authored memoir, then-President Harry Truman overruled George Marshall, the secretary of state he "revered" along with "James V. Forrestal, George F. Kennan, Robert Lovett, John J. McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson" and did recognize Israel. 

Truman's was a brave move, and in my view, a correct one -- but did lead to the wars that Marshall feared recognition of Israel would ignite.  Today, political Islam is on the rise in the Arab region -- and the failure of Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab League, Europe, Russia, the United Nations and the United States to achieve peace and the balancing creation of a state of Palestine remains a consequential, bleeding global ulcer.

Privately, Mitt Romney offered these dismissive words about the Middle East peace process:

[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem...and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.
Publicly today, Romney flip-flopped and committed himself to working to resolve the "unresolved problem":

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.  On this vital issue, the president has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew.
General Marshall was so disgusted with Truman's move that he stated in an ultra-secret memorandum that if Truman proceeded on Israel's recognition, he was going to vote against his boss in the next election. Nonetheless, Truman stood his ground and signed the note of recognition.

One wonders today whether Romney will ignore or listen to generals today -- like CIA Director General David Petraeus, former Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, CENTCOM commander General James Mattis, even the incumbent Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey -- all of whom agree that establishing and recognizing a state of Palestine is vital to U.S. national security and to defending Israel's long-term security in the region. 

General Marshall had it wrong on Israel -- but today, generals are arguing that America can't afford a false choice between Israel on one hand and Arab interests on the other. 

Romney is making a false choice -- hugging tightly one part of a tough neighborhood with little interest in the rest. 

If Romney wants to get this right, he should leverage the credibility he is building with Israel's leadership and hold them tightly in place while simultaneously pulling a Truman and recognizing a state of Palestine. 

As reported by Holbrooke, Truman was irritated that the State Department had made him look like a liar in a commitment he had made to former Israeli president Chaim Weizmann.  Truman stating:

The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life ....
One can only hope that Mitt Romney works as hard as Harry Truman to reconcile the private statements and commitments he makes to his public statements.

Watching the Denver Presidential Debate?

120914_obama_romney_debate_reuters_328.jpg
Reuters

Denver is buzzing ... not. Actually there are a few students and faculty at the University of Denver who seem to be aware that the president of the United States and a former governor who really wants that title (and the headaches) are going to converge here -- with thousands and thousands of outsiders, mostly media wanting to report the first moment that one of them looks at his watch during their encounter.

Most pollsters put Obama ahead nationally -- but Rush Limbaugh says that it's a widespread pollster conspiracy and that actually Obama and Romney are in a dead heat. I'm fine to go with Limbaugh this round (!). It feels like a close race to me even if Romney has failed to leverage any of Obama's few missteps and has made so many of his own mistakes it's hard to keep count. Bottom line is that lots of Americans are unhappy -- and there are enough undecideds to flip this thing. I do think Obama will win if the race were held tomorrow -- but what if another bin Laden video turns up? (Kidding ... just nervous about other Middle East types who draw red lines with markers at UN General Assembly sessions.)

Thumbnail image for lincolndouglas.jpgI want the debates to matter -- and thus think that all Americans who are pondering the fate of the nation should spend time watching and wrestling with the proposals they hear from our future or given-one-more-chance leader. I will be live-blogging the debates for both The Atlantic and The Washington Note -- and will be doing so along with Professor Jennifer Hopper's American Presidency class students -- some Dems, some GOPers, sitting in the same room, looking at the same screen -- at Washington College in Chestertown, Maryland.

Washington College, by the way, was launched in 1782 and actually had George Washington on its Board of Visitors when founded. Very cool place. Perhaps Washington, a Virginian, helping to establish a school in the rival state of Maryland may have been one of the first truly American acts of that time, at least in education. I wonder if Mitt Romney or Obama will reference the nation's founding fathers or Washington. What would George have done on drones? health care? corn crop subsidies? 

I do know that Hopper is going to spice up her "debate watch" much like CNN is going to do. 

First on CNN, I have learned through the grapevine that the network will have a split screen of both candidates the entire time of the debate. CNN will run a clock showing how much speaking time each candidate actually gets -- and there will be an ongoing graph at the bottom of the screen showing the 'sentiment' of a group of genuinely undecided voters who will be watching the debate in Sony PlayStation mode. 

Hopper has her own deal and sent this to a few special guests she has invited to join her debate-excited students:
We will have the opportunity to engage with the debate in an interactive way -- a group of political scientists have developed an app that will allow students to react to what's happening in real time, by indicating if they agree or disagree with what the candidates are saying, and whether they think candidates are trying to "spin" an issue or "dodge" a question.

These researchers will then make the aggregate data from campuses across the country available to us, so we can see what you and your peers find to be the most (and least) effective moments of the debate. If you are interested in using the app during the debate, all you need to do is bring your smartphone, laptop, or internet-connected tablet to our debate viewing on Wednesday. [Clemons Note:  I am bringing my smartphone -- but not upgraded to OS6]

I have attached here an email with more information for students -- note that participation is entirely voluntary and that your personal information and debate reactions will not be made public, they will merely be added to the overall summary statistics that the researchers compile.
Sounds fun.  Only bad part is that I'm in Denver the night before the debates and am planning to team up with National Journal and CNN's Ron Brownstein moderating a pre-debate event in the morning (join us if you are free -- and here).  I'll be interviewing Colorado Governor and beer and oil & gas expert John Hickenlooper at 10 a.m. central time (watch live here). And then am flying, training and driving to get to the Eastern Shore of Maryland tomorrow night to do this promised live blogging.

Some other tidbits courtesy of MSNBC's Chuck Todd (@ChuckTodd) who posted this stuff on twitter:

57 minutes ago

As of 5pm ET, the two campaigns and the debate commission had yet to sign the memo of understanding on the rules for tmro night.

47 minutes ago

BTW, here are the loose rules: each candidate will get 2 mins to answer the initial question at the start of each pod, then open season

46 minutes ago

After the initial limit of 2 mins for opening answer, up to moderator to decide when a candidate's gone on too long. BTW, there are 6 pods

Well, then...he got distracted and retweeted:

45 minutes ago
Rt ": Think I'll drop into Gotham and try some new stuff tonight ."

Hope someone live blogs Seinfeld. Thanks to Politico for finding a great pairing of Reuters pics of Obama and Romney. More tomorrow. 

Obama Strong but Wilting With Arab-Americans

ArabAmericansForObama.jpgA new poll issued by the Arab American Institute (pdf here) yesterday and conducted by JZ Analytics reports that President Obama maintains a commanding lead over Governor Mitt Romney in the election but that Obama's edge has dropped by 15 percent since the 2008 election. 

Arab-Americans are defecting from both both the GOP and the Democratic Party and are increasingly identifying as Independents (24 percent, according to James Zogby. That said Arab-American Dems stand at 46 percent of their population as compared to 22 percent who are GOPers.

In terms of what Arab-Americans thought was "very important" in guiding their presidential vote, the economy ranked far ahead of other issues. In rank order, health care came next; followed by civil liberties, taxes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and U.S. outreach to the Muslim world.

TodayWeVote.jpgIn every category, Obama beat Romney in Arab-American voter perceptions of being able to deal with key issues of the day. Obama's double digit gap was least in assessment of their respective ability to manage the economy. Surprisingly, Obama's lead on economic capability was exactly the same as the Obama-Romney gap on managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The last graph of the brief showed that 'concerns about discrimination' had grown among all Arab-Americans from 2010 to 2012, regardless of faith. Muslim Arab-Americans had very high levels of concern about discrimination; 71 percent today as compated to 64 percent in 2010. Thirty-seven percent of Protestant Arab-American worry about discrimination with 29 percent of Catholics concerned.

There are reportedly 3.9 million self-identifying Arab-Americans in the United States, and an expected 1.1 million Arab-American voters in Michigan, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The poll shows an expected advantage for Obama of 52 percent to 28 percent in these swing states.

Nonetheless, Obama's lead is less than that which he achieved in 2008, down to 52 percent from 67 percent.

It's interesting to consider whether Obama's powerful advantage with ethnic Americans has wilted 'enough' to give Romney an opportunity. 

As National Journal's Ron Brownstein has written and has explained frequently on CNN, the new mathematics of this election can be framed as "80/40". He argues that in the last election Obama won the presidency by winning 80 percent of all non-white voters in the country -- and won roughly 40 percent of white voters. 

Thus, the numbers to watch regarding Romney's challenge is whether he can take a chunk of either Obama's non-white voter base or shove Obama's white voter base to a level below 40 percent  Right now, polls show Obama roughly at the 80/40 level -- but Brownstein says it's still close.

Thus, while Obama may be clobbering Romney in absolute terms with Arab-American voters and virtually every other ethnic group, the relative gap with at least Arab-Americans has diminished.

That should worry the Obama ranks -- and represents a strange kind opportunity for Team Romney in which Obama wins with many of these groups, like Arab-Americans, but doesn't win by enough margins to win overall.

Would Romney Prosperity Pacts Work in Palestine?

Mitt Romney should consider putting his money where his mouth is creating jobs in the Middle East and see if "Prosperity Pacts" would work in Israel-occupied Palestine.  Financier James Wolfensohn tried and failed.  Maybe Romney should give it a go.

RTR38E2L.jpgReuters/Lucas Jackson

After President Obama's moving UN General Assembly speech that started with a story of who US Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been in terms of his life's passion for the Middle East and North Africa, the Romney camp issued a statement from former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky:

In his speech, President Obama listed the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, Syria, and Iran as major challenges facing the international community.  But those are three vital issues on which President Obama has unfortunately made no progress. The Peace Process is at a standstill, tens of thousands have been killed in Syria with Assad still in power, and Iran is hurtling toward nuclear weapons capability.

In his 2009 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama called for progress on the Peace Process and for an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Three years later, he's failed to deliver.  As has too often been the case with President Obama, the rhetoric doesn't match the policy.
The President and his national security team do deserve criticism for how some of these portfolios have been managed.  After all, Israel/Palestine had been the first major national security agenda item the President put his power and credibility behind, appointing former Senator George Mitchell to be his Envoy in seeking to secure real Middle East peace.

In a compelling but bleak New York Times assessment titled "Seven Lean Years of Peacemaking" by my New America Foundation colleague Daniel Levy, the negative results scream out.  Levy writes:

One thing is clear: The years from 2005 to 2012 have been seven decidedly lean ones for peacemaking and withdrawal and seven gluttonously fat ones for entrenching Israel's occupation and settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In these areas, almost 94,000 new settlers have been added since 2005, some settler outposts have been legalized and thousands of Palestinians have been displaced.
Obama should only get the blame for the 2009-2012 part of this portfolio -- but the failure to get Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on to a credible peace track with Palestinians has enormous strategic consequences for the country.

Dobriansky tells only part of the story as it was in both 2009 and 2010 that President Obama committed substantial portions of his UN General Assembly addresses to the problems of Palestine and Israel.  In 2010, he pointedly criticized the unwillingness of the parties to come together and pushed George Mitchell and others on his team to double down and get a deal done.  Obviously, with the resignations of both Senator Mitchell and Dennis Ross who had been Obama's Middle East wrangler on his National Security Team (both of whom had often worked at cross-purposes), ended Obama's efforts thus far on securing Middle East peace.

These results deserve both to be highlighted and criticized -- so thanks to Ambassador Dobriansky.

That said, would her candidate Mitt Romney do any better?

Yesterday we were given what were perhaps some of the most thoughtful comments yet expressed by Governor Romney on the turmoil in the Middle East and what can be done in response.  While his comments were not Palestine-specific and this may be the first time I have heard Romney address foreign policy and not make a single mention of Israel, his broad survey of the Middle East region and his assessment of the youth cover Palestine. 

Romney makes the sensible point that jobs matter, that economics is a major driver of both hope and desperation.    

Here are Romney's thoughts as captured by The Atlantic's politics channel senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta at the Clinton Global Initiative:

Work has to be at the heart of our efforts to help people build economies that can create jobs, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding. Work does not long tolerate corruption nor will it quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hard-working men and women. To foster work and enterprise in the Middle East and other developing countries I will initiate something I will call Prosperity Pacts, working with the private sector the program will identify the barriers to investment and trade and entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialism in developing nations. And, in exchange for removing those barriers and opening their markets to U.S. investment and trade, developing nations will receive U.S. assistance packages focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule of law, and property rights ....


The aim of a much larger share of our aid must be the promotion of work, and the fostering of free enterprise. Nothing we can do as a nation will change lives and nations more effectively and permanently than sharing the insight that lies at the foundation of America's own economy, and that is that free people pursuing happiness in their own ways, build a strong and prosperous nation.

Whether Romney is right or not, his jobs talk and the notion of "Prosperity Pacts" are a step ahead of the rhetoric that typecasts instability in the Middle East as a function of Islamic culture and fanaticism.  And the fact is that the Obama administration's policy towards places like Egypt and Palestine, Tunisia, and Libya is to try to lay groundwork for investment, aid, and jobs. 

So, Romney and the Obama administration actually are on similar tracks.  But the scale of what is needed in the region is staggering -- and small US programs or bland talk about job creation by the GOP presidential challenger doesn't come near to the level of economic course correction the region needs.

The more disconcerting gap between rhetoric and action is not on Obama's docket, however, but on Romney's.

What it not Mitt Romney who said at a fundraiser regarding Israel-Palestine peace, "this is going to remain an unresolved problem."

As Bill Clinton said during his Democratic National Convention speech, "it takes some brass to criticize the President for something you have done yourself."  In this case, it's out of place to take Obama down a notch on Israel-Palestine when your own candidate has no intention of trying to resolve the geostrategically significant ulcer.

And even more disconcerting were Romney's comments in Jerusalem about "culture" being the dividing line between the economic performance of Israel vs. Palestine.  As reported by Ashley Parker and Richard A. Oppel Jr., Romney said:

"Culture makes all the difference," Mr. Romney said. "And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things."

He added, "As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality. And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States."

Notwithstanding Romney's significant errors on the GDP gap between Israel and Palestine, it's outrageous to assess Palestine's economic potential without considering that all they have done has been done under Occupation, with barriers to travel and commerce embedded throughout their territory which Israel occupies and dominates, often brutally.

It's easy to talk about jobs and "Prosperity Pacts", but tougher to put them into motion in addressing the economic needs of a growing MENA youth bulge that needed a massive number of jobs yesterday.

To make this interesting, I dare Mitt Romney to test his thesis personally in the way that former World Bank President James Wolfensohn did.  Wolfensohn invested his own money in an effort to get Palestinian-grown strawberries to markets in Europe and worked out deals with the Israelis and established a greenhouse project and processing infrastructure at Israel's Karni Crossing.  To make a long and sad story short, even the great James Wolfensohn failed to overcome Israeli arbitrariness in what it allowed and didn't in terms of earnest Palestine commerce with the rest of the world.

Let's see if Mitt Romney can devote a small bit of his fortune to getting a business up and running in Palestine.  Perhaps he could meet with his new employees and hear what they have to do to connect with their families and what humiliations they go through trying to get their kids to school or trying to take products to market.

Perhaps Romney would succeed in ways others in Palestine have not, but until then, it seems that, as Dobriansky framed it, the gap between rhetoric and results on the Romney vision for the region seems insurmountable.

Jumping Off the Romney Ship: Pawlenty Resigns His Campaign Role

Thumbnail image for pawlenty.jpg
Reuters

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, previously a GOP presidential and vice-presidential hopeful, has jumped ship and resigned as co-chairman of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. 

Romney's team issued a statement incorrectly stating that Pawlenty would take over as chairman and CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable

Pawlenty will actually become president and CEO of the organization, succeeding former Dallas Mayor and Member of Congress Steve Bartlett, who has been serving as president of the Financial Services Roundtable since 1999.  Allstate CEO Thomas Wilson is the chairman of the Roundtable.

But one wonders whether Pawlenty, who has been on everyone's very short list for a likely high level cabinet post in a Romney White House, has just given up on Romney. Clearly a lot of other Republicans are on edge.  Rich Lowry's surprising blast at the GOP candidate is a case in point.

I asked a seasoned insider closely following the day to day operations of Team Romney:

Are people surprised by Pawlenty's move 48 days before the election?
Answer:

Well, let me put it this way - it's a great job for T-Paw, but not a better job than a cabinet secretary. If Romney were running five points ahead in the polls I doubt Pawlenty would've jumped ship.
There it is. Congratulations to Tim Pawlenty on FSR. Probably a smart move, and as good a political indicator as any of Obama/Romney trends.

Does Romney Know Anything About Nukes?

Joe Cirincione, one of the nation's sharpest minds on nuclear weapons policy, just highlighted in Foreign Policy yet another big gulp moment in the viral video of Mitt Romney triggering shock and awe (wrong kind of awe though) across the political world.  Cirincione speculates, based on the recording, that Mitt knows little of nukes and even less of dirty bombs.  And the difference matters, big time.

Cirincione picks up something few others did in this clip from the Romney fundraiser:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran -- a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have -- where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

--Mitt Romney, May 17, 2012

The Ploughshares Fund President and former Carnegie Endowment and Center for American Progress nuclear wunderkind (approaching wunderelder) then implies that Romney isn't up to the job he is seeking and doesn't understand what may be the premier responsibility of the American president in a still-nuclear world.  Cirincione writes:

Governor Mitt Romney's description, caught on video, of what he considered the real nuclear threat from Iran has further undermined his national security credentials, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear threats. Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with dirty bombs. Terrorists would not use uranium -- from Iran or anywhere else -- in a dirty bomb. It is unclear if Gov. Romney was just riffing, or if his advisors had fed him this line of attack. But it is dead wrong.

Nuclear bombs are serious business, and preventing their spread and their use against the United States is perhaps the paramount duty of the president, who, of course, is also responsible for any decision to use America's own arsenal.

Does Romney really not know the difference between a dirty bomb, which as Cirincione points out has never been used, and a nuclear warhead?  Does Romney know that no matter what bomb Iran manages to put together, if it assembles one, that it will be primitive, and not have anywhere near the magnitude, destructive ability and lethality of any of the single thermonuclear warheads in Israel's sizable arsenal?  Nuclear weapons are a dangerous business -- so too the materials that could contribute to a dirty bomb; but how one deals with each of these types of threats is radically different. 

President Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden, has done a commendable job restoring global concern about nuclear materials management.  Obama hosted a major global summit in Washington focused on nuclear materials controls; got a revised START arms control treaty back in place with the Russians; used the US presidency of the UN Security Council three years ago to focus on nuclear and WMD proliferation.  Obama and Biden know the entire nuclear terrain well.

Let's think the unthinkable for a moment.  If Governor Romney got that 3 am call and learned that a dirty bomb had been successfully deployed in a US city, or perhaps in Israel or another ally, would he launch a nuclear weapon in retaliation?  These questions matter -- and it's not clear that Romney has the wherewithal at the moment to understand the responsibilities the US President carries for globlal nuclear stewardship.

In the mid-1980s, I had the privilege of working with RAND nuclear strategist and former USAF General Glenn Kent, who recently passed in April of this year, on an arms control related 'currency system' called "Standard Weapon Stations."  In its obituary, RAND recognized Kent for "devising the framework that would serve as the U.S. government's general plan for nuclear war from 1961 to 2003."

Without going into too much detail, one of the technical problems in US-Soviet arms control at the time was trying to find a way to ease the comparison and trade-offs between a widening variety of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  There were the slow-moving but powerful B-52 nuclear warhead-laden fleet, MIRVed and non-MIRVed warheads on a variety of nuclear missiles, some of which were launched from fixed but hardened sites, some on tracks, some on subs, some miniaturized and highly mobile on cruise missiles. Miles Pomper, Jeffrey Lewis (aka Arms Control Wonk), or William Potter could issue dozens of other innovative ways that the US President or Soviet Premier could blow up a large chunk of the world.  The differentiation in missile warhead throw-weight and accuracy made negotiating across this complex portfolio more than just a political problem -- but also a genuinely technical one.

When trading apples and oranges, or trading GLCMs for SLCMs or more, Glenn Kent smartly thought one needed a currency, or metric, that allowed easy trading of dissimilar nuclear weapons commodities.  Kent wasn't popular for this, nor I for me enthusiasm for his idea, because most thought that we were distracted by a gimmick and not understanding that politics more than anything else drove the deal-making.

What was fascinating at the time is that no matter who was President of the United States -- Ronald Reagan then and Jimmy Carter just before, or the people who wanted to rise up and challenge them like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, eventually Bob Dole, Bill Bradley, Richard Lugar, John Anderson and more -- everyone had a basic, grounded understanding of nuclear weapons, their dangers, and an approximate understanding of America's arsenal as compared to the Soviets.  Folks at the time would joke about whether Ronald Reagan really had a grasp of the nuclear dangers and systems he was frequently speaking about. 

There was a rumor that possibly was urban legend (never have been able to find the quote) that Reagan thought a submarine-launched ballistic missile could be called back after launch.  I doubt Reagan said this -- but even if he had, Reagan knew enough about nukes after many tutorials and discussions with hydrogen bomb father and nuclear hawk Edward Teller that Reagan respected the devastation that a nuclear conflagration could generate.

I happened to be with Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter at West Point one day in the 1980s on the morning that the Los Angeles Times' Robert Scheer wrote about a leaked private letter from then President Ronald Reagan to Albert Wohlstetter, a direct and personal one, asking the famed conservative nuclear strategist to outline for Reagan's second term the key strategic opportunities and pitfalls facing the United States.  Wohlstetter was furious about Scheer's article and refused to discuss publicly what he might share with Ronald Reagan. 

But what one could surmise from both Reagan's letter and Wohlstetter's response is that the actor-turned-Governor-turned-President knew a lot about nukes.

It's not clear that Mitt Romney meets the Ronald Reagan bar -- or the bar set by any other US President in his fundamental appreciation for the nuclear weapons realities the White House must manage. 

One hopes that one of the anchors in the upcoming Presidential debates will pose a nuclear weapons related question to Governor Romney and President Obama. 

Note to the Governor:  a good place to start his tutorial on Iran would be a chat with CSIS' Anthony Cordesman who can give him a candid, Herman Kahn-style rundown on who will be the victor and vanquished in an Israel-Iran nuclear tiff (hint: not Tehran). 

Next, Dana Priest's well-researched and compelling profile of America's deteriorating nuclear weapons stockpile is another fantastic resource.  I'd probably count on Joe Biden and Barack Obama each being totally up to speed on all of this.

Good luck to the Governor in those debates should this topic come up.

Better Off Than 4 Years Ago?

120811_paulryan_medicare_reuters_328.jpg
Reuters
Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan has accomplished something quite important. At both conventions, in the corner rooms of Charlotte and Tampa organized by media groups and political activist outfits, serious discussions unfolded about the real state of the economy and the different policy approaches Americans needed to consider.

Paul Ryan is the most ideologically severe vice-presidential candidate in a century, a commentator said at a National Journal/Atlantic economic-policy dinner done on a not-for-attribution basis. But nearly everyone credits his selection with igniting a debate about tough choices on the economy that politicians and presidents have been ducking for decades. The clear consensus emerging out of Tampa's GOP convention and the DNC's in Charlotte is that there is a real choice being offered to Americans. The first option is "rigorous austerity" that could even further gut America's middle class and take the fallen standard of living to new lows. The second is a limited Keynesian approach that tries to reform while slashing spending.

There are also a couple of themes that aren't getting much air time but which deserve to be kicked around.

One of these, a charge leveled by Democrats about themselves, is that the Democrats have really screwed up -- twice. The argument goes like this: Back in the '90s, while the economy was expanding, the IT bubble was bubbling, and capital gains churning was filling federal and state coffers, Clinton -- guided primarily by his economic mentor and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- helped ignite a financial-sector privileged wealth production machine that didn't take into account the long-term consequences of American manufacturing decamping to foreign shores.

In other words, Clinton pushed the Uruguay Round of GATT, set up China's membership in the WTO, and removed the important barriers that divided retail banking from securities trading. Clinton was highly influenced by the economic-policy practitioners on his team who carried with them all of the biases of neoliberal economics. Those who focused on the importance of manufacturing, of the role of government in seeing to the parts of the economic environment markets would not sustain, the importance of high-wage job creation, were pushed aside.

This is also exactly what happened during the first two years of the Obama administration, where those of a neoliberal persuasion prevailed over those who wanted to concentrate first on a serious jobs and infrastructure program.

That discussion came up frequently in the meetings in Charlotte. Arianna Huffington even held a "shadow convention" (as she also did in Tampa) on the subject of what is really working and what not in job creation in the United States. She believes that the Democrats on the whole are not having a serious debate about the jobs crisis today and have not taken responsibility for their own mistakes in favoring banks' survival over that of families losing their homes and jobs on a massive scale. 

To be fair to President Obama, he inherited skyrocketing unemployment, collapsing global economy when he moved into the White House, and did take steps that stopped further, probably catastrophic implosion. He called on people like Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner in part because the world respected them and Obama needed to stop a global confidence crisis that was aggravating underlying economic instability. 

But Obama allowed voices like Austan Goolsbee, Jared Bernstein, and Paul Volcker to be sidelined, while really technical financial and economic geniuses like George Soros never got in the door. Obama allowed the neoliberal, macroeconomic financial-sector-über-alles types to prevail over the micro-economic jobs, housing, and manufacturing voices. 

Obama has shifted now and is pushing a jobs and infrastructure program that many Dems I spoke to in Charlotte say he should have led with in his administration. Ironically, the financial sector crowd that Obama bailed out are giving donations in droves to Mitt Romney, while many in the small donor base that previously supported Obama have lost their jobs and their homes and their willingness to send in $3.00 for a chance to play basketball or have dinner with the president.

clinton charlotte.jpgAnother of the issues being kicked around is whether Americans are indeed worse off or are better off than they were four years ago.

At the National Journal/Atlantic dinner mentioned above, a prominent pollster said that there is no doubt Americans are better off. In his view, the global economy was going over a cliff, the mounting job losses were staggering, and America was facing a genuine potential depression. He said that most today, however dissatisfied with the status quo, know that jobs are being slowly created, that the recovery is really happening albeit slowly, and that the economy is heading generally in the right direction.

National Journal's Jim Tankersley, however, disputes that assessment in a powerful piece that should be read in full. In the opening clip, he writes:
The middle class in America today is not better off than it was four years ago, not better off than it was at the end of the Great Recession in 2009, not even better off than when President Clinton left office in 2001.

This is the truth that Democrats must confront as they anchor their national convention theme in Charlotte on vows of support for American workers: The middle class has been declining for more than a decade, including through the Obama recovery.

Inflation-adjusted median income fell by 2.3 percent in 2010 (the last year for which official statistics are available) and dipped below $50,000 per year for the first time since 1996, the Census Bureau reports. Real median weekly wages last quarter were lower than at the same time in 2002 -- and down 1.5 percent from the second quarter of 2010.
Ouch. Tanerksley is right. Americans are down and out, and on whole more down and out than when Obama came in, even if the original downward momentum wasn't the president's fault.

Obama failed to put a floor down that might have preempted further collapse of the housing market. He failed to use his powers to remove management teams at banks and financial shops that had been the purveyors of loans to Americans ill-equipped to service them.

One of the ironies of the two conventions was to watch wealthy GOP financiers and their representatives pound the table and lecture at the podium in Tampa that America was not better off than it was four years ago -- though they were personally much richer. In Charlotte, those who really were worse off were declaring that they weren't. Bill Clinton had them yelling that they were -- after all -- much better off than four years ago. Orwellian.

Finally, another topic not much discussed is one that former bank CEO and credit expert Richard Vague and I have been kicking around and which I have previously written about (and was referenced in this interesting Financial Times piece by Edward Luce).

The debate between Paul Ryan & Co. and the Obama/Biden-led crowd on the levels of government debt reduction necessary for a healthy economy that will grow is a false one. Vague and I show in this report that the deleveraging in the private sector in the U.S. since the economic collapse of 2008-2009 has been minor and that Americans are releveraging again. In other words, private debt loads -- which were not on the whole written down to reflect real values -- are again piling on debt.

The real culprit therefore is not government spending, but the level of private debt that banks and financial houses should have been writing down to real values. The fact that they have not been writing it down limits the capacity of the U.S. economy to return anytime soon to robust growth.

I wasn't expecting much in terms of substance from the two conventions, but it needs to be noted that in Charlotte and Tampa, a serious discussion about what constitutes smart economic policy was being had. 

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan may or may not win in November, but the spark that they initiated about economic policy challenges is healthy for the nation. 

The Biggest Story in Photos

Kumbh Mela: The Largest Gathering on Earth

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

ATLANTIC MEDIA

Elsewhere on the web