POLITICAL COLUMN
Chuck Hagel puts country before conquest
“They’re already saying Chuck Hagel may be unwilling to send troops into a war zone needlessly,” David Letterman said a few nights ago. “What kind of a nut job is he?”
Letterman, who often pretends to be a clueless goof when it comes to serious topics, actually is politically astute. And he hit on one of Hagel’s chief appeals as Barack Obama’s nominee to become secretary of defense: Hagel doesn’t believe in needless wars or endless wars or wars as our first choice.
Continue ReadingAnd, in that, both he and the president match the public mood perfectly.
Iraq has been a calamity, pouring precious U.S. lives (to say nothing of innocent Iraqi lives) and dollars into a war over mythical weapons of mass destruction. Does anybody still doubt that George W. Bush wanted to believe in those weapons because he wanted to finish off the dictator that his father had failed to remove?
I am no fan of homicidal dictators like Saddam Hussein, but the world has other homicidal dictators and before we decide to wage nearly nine-year, trillion-dollar wars to remove them all, maybe we ought to have a better reason than unresolved father-son relationships.
Our invasion of Afghanistan was certainly justified, but we are still fighting there long after our legitimate objective has been accomplished: the crippling of Al Qaeda’s ability to strike at the American homeland and the destruction of Al Qaeda’s top leadership.
But we have remained in Afghanistan to build it into an American suburb, where everybody will think like we do about human and civil rights. It is a worthy but dreamlike goal, and all we have really accomplished is to prop up a corrupt and unpopular regime in Kabul.
If that echoes Vietnam to you, it should. Hagel was a sergeant in Vietnam, a squad leader in the 9th Infantry Division, where he was awarded two Purple Hearts. He, like Obama’s nominee for secretary of state, John Kerry, learned some valuable lessons over there:
Be careful about feeding the meat grinder. The butcher’s bill is always going to be higher than you think. And the members of Congress who bravely vote to fund our wars don’t have to fight in them.
Here is Hagel in an interview last year with Robert Nolan, an editor at the Foreign Policy Association:
“Here we are 12 years in Afghanistan, having very significant difficulties on winding that down. It’s easy to get into war, it’s easy to intervene. Not easy to ‘un-intervene,’ unwind or get out of war.
“One of the reasons we’re in trouble in Afghanistan is because we went well beyond our mission. We accomplished the mission then we took our eye off the ball and intervened, invaded and occupied Iraq. And now, 12 years later, we’re not sure what our mission is. … We always learn. They’re tough lessons to learn. Vietnam was a tough lesson for us to learn.”
Readers' Comments (37)
66gardeners Party: NA
Reply #1
Jan. 10, 2013 - 6:17 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Roameo Party: Independent
Reply #2
Jan. 10, 2013 - 7:16 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
dbIV Party: Democrat
Reply #3
Jan. 10, 2013 - 7:43 AM EST
@Roameo
I think President Obama chose Hagel because in Chuck Hagel he found a man (1) capable of doing the job; (2) a like-minded man on relevant defense issues; and (3) someone he personally likes and believes he can work well with. I think he also likes the bipartisan nature of the pick. (I know, I know, a handful of neocons and neocon-financed organizations would have us believe Chuck Hagel isn't "really" a Republican, but most Americans know better and all the neocon propaganda and smears won't change the fact that Hagel is a lifelong Republican. (One would think his shockingly aggressive and stupid homophobic statement about Hormel would be Republican proof enough.) ON POINT!!! one would think quite relevant reasons for making picks to the president's cabinet, certainly criteria relied upon by other presidents. BUT in this case, the president is accused of "picking fights" with republican senators. lindsy graham calls it an "in your face nomination". other politicos have deemed the pick a final swipe at GWB. since when did the president's prerogative to pick his cabinet become an exercise of personal attacks against the other party? why do republicans always turn everything into a political fight and then political fights into personal attacks aimed at them, their party? perhaps if republicans grew up first they'd have an easier go at deciding who they are as a political party, ending their current insurrection. - Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
war2013 Party: NA
Reply #4
Jan. 10, 2013 - 8:43 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Jack Reacher Party: NA
Reply #5
Jan. 10, 2013 - 9:10 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
DrBillLemoine Party: Democrat
Reply #6
Jan. 10, 2013 - 10:13 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
tom-alaska Party: NA
Reply #7
Jan. 10, 2013 - 10:20 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Mike Botula Party: Democrat
Reply #8
Jan. 10, 2013 - 10:32 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
mangas Party: N/A
Reply #9
Jan. 10, 2013 - 11:33 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Muffy787 Party: Democrat
Reply #10
Jan. 10, 2013 - 11:53 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Lisztman Party: Democrat
Reply #11
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:06 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
sooner41 Party: NA
Reply #12
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:06 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
jasonmartin Party: Democrat
Reply #13
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:14 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
jasonmartin Party: Democrat
Reply #14
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:16 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
independentinchicago Party: N/A
Reply #15
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:29 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
independentinchicago Party: N/A
Reply #16
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:31 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
zekeb Party: Independent
Reply #17
Jan. 10, 2013 - 1:58 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Protect USA 1st Party: Independent
Reply #18
Jan. 10, 2013 - 6:04 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Protect USA 1st Party: Independent
Reply #19
Jan. 10, 2013 - 6:06 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
willbheard Party: NA
Reply #20
Jan. 10, 2013 - 6:07 PM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Read all 37 comments in our forumI love your work Simon. You are an inspiration.
I think President Obama chose Hagel because in Chuck Hagel he found a man (1) capable of doing the job; (2) a like-minded man on relevant defense issues; and (3) someone he personally likes and believes he can work well with. I think he also likes the bipartisan nature of the pick. (I know, I know, a handful of neocons and neocon-financed organizations would have us believe Chuck Hagel isn't "really" a Republican, but most Americans know better and all the neocon propaganda and smears won't change the fact that Hagel is a lifelong Republican. (One would think his shockingly aggressive and stupid homophobic statement about Hormel would be Republican proof enough.)
John Sour Grapes McCain probably will lead a smear campaign against Hagel. Perhaps he'll be joined by his two fellow stooges, Graham and Ayotte (replacing Lieberman). McCain wants the position Hagel has been nominated for, though warmongering McCain would be a terrible choice for the position. (Are you listening, Hillary?) The neocon warmongers in the Senate are having a crying fit, fearing Hagel might actually help the USA avoid unnecessary wars. (Of course, to the neocon warmongers, there are no unnecessary wars.) We changed the name from the War Department to the Department of Defense for a good reason; we see ourselves as a peaceful people wishing to live in peace with our global neighbors. We don't seek to start wars or conflicts, but we do reserve the right to defend ourselves, our government and values to the death, if necessary. Chuck Hagel may be just the one we need: one who can serve ably in this proper defensive spirit, while leading the charge to economize, mechanize, streamline and modernize our 21st century defensive powers.
AMERICAN SHIPS SUNK IN STRAITS OF HORMUZ, HEAVY CASUALTIES
July 4 2013. Iranian missles hit several American ships in retaliation for bombing of nuclear facilities. US casualties were in the thousands. William Kristol, along with other NEOCONs took credit for starting the airstrikes, which the Weekly Standard had called for since 2006. In 2003 Kristol and others persuaded the President to invade Iraq. " We are very proud of that" he noted to reporters.
" Sacrificed on the altar of freedom". Kristol said. Reuters confirmed reports that Kristol's lawyers had applied for deferments from the Draft which was re activated on Tuesday noting that his relatives " would be mistreated as POWs" He also included all Neocons who were involved in starting the Iraq War in 2003. " It is not our children's role to fight the wars that we start" he was overheard saying in a Washington Cigar Bar. " We beat Hagel. He was trying to stop this great war!" He denied the statements - accusing the witnesses of being Anti Semitic "Hagel Fans"
Meanwhile Iraqi Naval Units began firing at American ships. There was shelling near the border with Kuwait by Iraqi Units under control of Shiite commanders sympathetic to Iran, " It is time for Jihad" was heard among the troops interviewed by CNN. Several allies including Jordan were evacuating as jihadists took over government facilities. Russian Naval activity was reported and Putin was threatening to " protect our Allies in Iran"
In the US- truck bombs exploded in major cities. Al Queda operatives were holding hotel guests hostage while shooting at police snipers. Suicide bombers targeted public gatherings. The Empire State Building was on fire. All air and rail travel was suspended due to terrorist incidents. Marines from Quantico stopped a group of forty jihadists at the US Capitol , capturing four who were wounded in an exchange of gunfire.
NeoCons lead by Kristol boarded private aircraft to Marthas Vineyard. " Good Luck to our brave soldiers" several said while mixing Martinis at Dulles Airport. A 20 year old grandson of Kristol laughed, tennis racket in hand, noting " Dying in the Persian Gulf is not where I will spend my 21 st Birthday!"
Roger is working hard to make Hagel smell good -
I was one Democrat who thought a Democrat should lead defense for the nation and its dominant party. Now I realize what a good fit Hagel is for SecDef. This piece defines his 'fit' to a T. It's more important to resolve pressing national problems of pentagon cutbacks, pursuing Obama's good national defense policies and changing warfare realities than to appease the Democratic party. Much as I think a Democrat is more than qualified to lead this bastion of Republican strength in the past, it's more important to re-evaluate national security overall. Now with Brennan and Kerry pending for the cabinet with Hagel, we'll have real administrative realignment of priorities, funds and capabilities. Good work, Mr. President.
Obama seems to like picking political re-treads and old hacks. If he doesn't pick hacks, he picks the under qualified, like he was in 2008 and is today, to be take over the Treasury. I guess Obama is pushing to really make his lame duck term start on Jan 21, 2013.
As I write this, the blog is telling me that I'm the first to comment. Great! Because your neocon, rightwing, superpatriot screamers are going to lay down an ear splitting cacaphony. Don't forget that Chuck Hagel probably also wants to take away their Second Amendments rights. But the truth is, Roger Simon's assessment is right on the money. He is the right man for the job at the right time.
Politico will now be called an Obama Tool by the Right Nuts. Every single right wing segment attacks him: The Zionists, the Log Cabineers, the warmongers...good to see them all in one place.
The blacks, Hispanics, women have not yet asked where Hagel stands on their issues.This is Defense, folks, and Hagel shall not do nor advocate a policy or program that the President does not approve. Let's transfrt the Obama mandate (electoral vote) to his choices to serve the country. Hagel is an honorable man, we come not to bury him but to praise him.
Hagel is my kind of man, he is smart and knows what is right for the country, not for the defense manufacturers as the others all have been.
I pray he gets in, I am a lifelong Dem.
Great article as usual.
Perhaps Mr. Hagel is more aware than most that the title, and the department, are the Secretary of Defense. And the Department of Defense. NOT the Secretary of War -- a title that was retired in 1947.
There's a saying that "the best defense is a good offense." It's most frequently applied in sports. But it's not the only way to play the game. Tell that to the Baltimore Ravens -- I doubt that they'll agree. So the saying is just that -- a saying. It's not a de facto truism.
Mr. Hagel's apparent commitment to shrinking our outd military is in line with "Defense". The hawks in the Senate won't like him. Opponents will scramble all over things that he's said in the course of his career. But we're not looking to him to be Secretary of State, for which position exact, perfect, wording is paramount. He's proven himself over the years in the areas that count.
Mr. Simon gets five handclaps from me for a well-written piece. Thank you, sir.
HAGEL WILL BE GREAT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE !
x
x
typical of today's sick liberal writers, simon delivers another false story with pathetic pretense. he writes that bush went into iraq on false intelligence reports yet ignores that hussein had sought nukes for decades and had prohibited ANY united nations inspections for a full 10 years prior. our allies and our enemies finally agreed on one thing; saddam had to go because he was a danger to the world and he was getting crazier and more dangerous. the middle east is forever changed for the better thanks to iraq's democracy and their example cannot be ignored by the dictators and extremists in the region. bush deserves that credit and history will give it to him. bush's giant error was not planning well for life in iraq after the downfall and then mismanaging the chaos for years after. hagel is not going to be confirmed because he's another fool like simon that wants to claim a higher ground morally while dismissing the importance of the successful war to remove a maniac that threatened the world. easy to be a liberal with no character in today's culture. politico sucks for giving voice to fools like simon. they could easily provide space for a legitimate progressive liberal with sense instead.
and you're an idiot in love with a weak quack.
I agree with Simon's portrayal of Hagel, and hope he gets through the nominating process without a protracted debate. However I also hope Obama takes him aside and tells him in no uncertain terms that he must aggressively prosecute the rapists that have historically been protected by a lax chain of command. Panetta made it a top priority to stop this shameful behavior, and I hope Hagel will do the same.
Thank you, President Obama, for selecting "Best Ever Secretary of Defense" Former Senator Chuck Hagel.
---The groups in USA, who are against Former Senator Chuck Hagel, are...AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israeli-Firsters USA Politicians (Local, State & Federal), and Ignorant Americans.
----WHY?
----Because, Former Senator Chuck Hagel fused to take AIPAC's (Israeli/Zionists group) Oat, by saying you could only take One Oat, and mine is for USA, unlike our corrupt politician.
---First, only the "Native Americans," could claim USA is their country of origin, the rest of us came from somewhere, whether we were born in USA or came here with our ancestors.
---That is why we call ourselves, German-Americans, French-Americans, British-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. (Not Catholic Americans, since that is our religion.)
----The only group of people in USA who use their religion rather than their origin are Jewish-Americans AKA Israeli-Americans.
----Who came up with "anti-Semitic"?
Israeli/Zionists as their propaganda tools, in order to terrorize, not only USA, but also the entire world, who don't know all the people with "Semitic" ethnicity.
----What does "anti-Semitic" means?
Those individuals who are against people with "Semitic" ethnicity.
---Who are the "Semites" or even Hemites?
The majority of people who live in the Middle-East, North Africa, the entire Arabian Peninsula, Southeast Asia and beyond.
--------Therefore, since the majority of the people who live in the Middle-East, North Africa, the entire Arabian Peninsula, Southeast Asia and beyond are "Semites" or Hemites, Israeli/Zionists, do not have "Monopoly on the word 'Semites."
'USA Congressmen live in fear of pro-Israel intimidation'
------Many American senators and congressmen “keep quiet” and refrain from criticizing Israeli policies because they “live in fear” and are “intimidated” by pro-Israeli groups such as the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), according to J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
---Top Senate & House Recipients Funded by AIPAC
http://maplight.org/us-congres...
Joel Stein, LA Times - Who Own the USA Media?
http://www.latimes.com/news/op...
Thank you, President Obama, for selecting "Best Ever Secretary of Defense" Former Senator Chuck Hagel.
---The groups in USA, who are against Former Senator Chuck Hagel, are...AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israeli-Firsters USA Politicians (Local, State & Federal), and Ignorant Americans.
----WHY?
----Because, Former Senator Chuck Hagel fused to take AIPAC's (Israeli/Zionists group) Oat, by saying you could only take One Oat, and mine is for USA, unlike our corrupt politician.
---First, only the "Native Americans," could claim USA is their country of origin, the rest of us came from somewhere, whether we were born in USA or came here with our ancestors.
---That is why we call ourselves, German-Americans, French-Americans, British-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. (Not Catholic Americans, since that is our religion.)
----The only group of people in USA who use their religion rather than their origin are Jewish-Americans AKA Israeli-Americans.
----Who came up with "anti-Semitic"?
Israeli/Zionists as their propaganda tools, in order to terrorize, not only USA, but also the entire world, who don't know all the people with "Semitic" ethnicity.
----What does "anti-Semitic" means?
Those individuals who are against people with "Semitic" ethnicity.
---Who are the "Semites" or even Hemites?
The majority of people who live in the Middle-East, North Africa, the entire Arabian Peninsula, Southeast Asia and beyond.
--------Therefore, since the majority of the people who live in the Middle-East, North Africa, the entire Arabian Peninsula, Southeast Asia and beyond are "Semites" or Hemites, Israeli/Zionists, do not have "Monopoly on the word 'Semites."
'USA Congressmen live in fear of pro-Israel intimidation'
------Many American senators and congressmen “keep quiet” and refrain from criticizing Israeli policies because they “live in fear” and are “intimidated” by pro-Israeli groups such as the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), according to J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami.
http://www.haaretz.com/...
---Top Senate & House Recipients Funded by AIPAC
http://maplight.org/us-congres...
Joel Stein, LA Times - Who Own the USA Media?
http://www.latimes.com/news/op...
Independentinchicago, you might be interested to learn that Saddam did allow inspectors in and they were finding no WMD but we kicked them out so we could invade (unnecessarily). And I hope you don't really believe Iraq is a democracy now: it's a mess.
You must be logged in to comment
Not yet a member?
Register Now