It
seems certain that Chuck Hagel will be confirmed by
the U.S. Senate as the next secretary of state. But it shouldn’t be.
For the Hagel issue is the perfect symbol of the dilemmas faced by
America today.
The
first problem is the willingness of all too much of the mass media and
the Democratic Party to be a doormat for President Barack Obama even
though this stance is against their own interests. Many Democratic
senators resent the fact that they are so pressured to vote for Hagel
even though it makes them look foolish and might endanger their
reelection chances.
Their
willingness to vote for Hagel, however, shows the triumph of
partisanship and ideology over national interest. Obviously, there are
times when those factors will prevail, especially if the question is
more marginal. But when a clearly unqualified man who has made a fool of
himself in public hearings is going to take a post that involves the
very lives of so many, that’s where you should draw the line.
In
other words, even if one argues that the president should be given
whoever he wants in high posts unless there is a really good reason to
deny consent to such a nomination, here is the case where that exception
applies.
Second,
there is the way the issue is defined. A New York senator and a New
York newspaper, for example, wants to narrow the problem into the idea
that Hagel may have used one
word—Jewish as in Jewish lobby--in an offensive way. That’s supposedly
why Hagel isn’t fit for the job.
If
that’s true then anyone who opposed Hagel might be considered to
represent a selfish, narrow, interest group. Indeed, some of Hagel’s
defenders have turned the issue of his being criticized for saying nasty
things about Jews having too much power into proof that Jews have too
much power.
In
defending Hagel’s gaffe, both that senator and that editorial have also
committed what might be called ideological antisemitism. If
Hagel is innocent then those who oppose him are merely too (right-wing)
Jewish or pro-Israel or “neo-conservative” (a code-word for “Jewish,”
especially in the Middle East). And if they block Hagel then doesn't
that prove Hagel was right?
What
makes this view objectively absurd is that there are dozens of reasons
to oppose Hagel’s nomination, most of them having nothing to do with
Israel.
Please be subscriber 31,227 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
First
and foremost among these is that he has expressed objectively
anti-American views, as was shown for example, in his agreeing with an
al-Jazira caller who described the United States as an aggressive bully.
Anti-Americanism may be fashionable among the U.S. elite today but it
is not a good characteristic for a secretary of defense. Aside from
everything else, if the United States has always been bad for pursing
its interests in the past why should this secretary of defense compound
the sin by championing U.S. interests today?
Second,
it is painfully clear—even to his supporters who would never admit it
in public—that Hagel doesn’t understand the issues and is incapable of
running a huge bureaucracy. Hagel even admitted his incapability in his
own defense, boating that this didn’t matter since he wouldn’t be making
any decisions anyway!
Once
again, though, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 election advertisement test
applies: Who do you want to answer the call at three AM? We have before
us at this moment a perfect
example. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where four
Americans were murdered, was dropped into the lap of Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta. How many Americans might die when Hagel is given
the responsibility for action?
Third,
one could point out that the ultimate choices for Benghazi were with
Obama. But that’s also a reason for understanding why Hagel shouldn’t be
confirmed. A secretary of defense should not just be a “yes-man.” He
should represent an independent point of view and also represent his
department’s interests.
If
the secretary of defense is only a “yes-man” for the White House that
means the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commanders in the field
will be left out of decision-making. With Hagel at the helm, the
uniformed military will have no spokesman when the top-level priorities
and choices are set.
Fourth,
the appointment of Hagel is a sign of profound disrespect for America’s
soldiers. Here are people who put their lives on the line and expect to
be properly led. Their lives should not be jeopardized or sacrificed
lightly. By putting in a man clearly incapable of performing the job—who
even admits that he cannot do it properly—it is telling them that their
government doesn’t care whether they live or die.
And by the same token that selection makes it more likely that more of them will die.
Finally
and ironically, Democrats and Obama supporters should oppose this
nomination to save the president in spite of himself. Ensuring that he
will get poor advice and have an incapable person in such a key position
means that Obama will look far worse as his policies fail and crises
blow up into defeats. Whether or not Obama likes it he should have
someone there to explain why the president should or shouldn’t do
something. It’s for his own good.
Barry
Rubin is director of the
Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of
the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment