Harriet Hagel

In October 2005, George Bush 43 surprised everyone, most of all his own party, by nominating his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to fill the vacancy of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. While Ms. Miers was no doubt a nice person, she was totally unsuited for a judgeship on the Supreme Court (as was Elena Kagan) and a firestorm erupted on both sides of the aisle, most particularly on the Republican side. Conservative talk show hosts and talking head pundits went on a tear. The late Robert Bork, nominated by Ronald Reagan and savagely rejected by a Ted Kennedy-led smear campaign, called the nomination a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who’ve been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

Four days after Bush’s nomination, he announced that he was withdrawing Miers at her request. Sam Alito replaced her as Bush’s choice and was confirmed, after which he has proven to be a worthy justice, one who respects the Constitution.

On January 7 Obama announced that he was nominating former Republican Senator Charles T. “Chuck” Hagel for Secretary of Defense to replace Leon Panetta, who is allegedly retiring, though some close to him hint he is quitting rather than preside over the budget-gutting of our national defense arsenal. Like Miers, Hagel is totally unsuited to fill the position for which he was nominated. Why would Obama repeat the Bush blunder and choose a third-rate candidate like the enigmatic Hagel when there are so many candidates who are eminently better qualified?

Although Miers never made it to the hearings phase of her confirmation before she was withdrawn, Hagel has, and his sorry performance showed him to be Obama’s Harriet Miers redux. We may as well call him Harriet Hagel.

Only Obama, the smartest man to hold the American presidency, truly knows why he would put forward so weak a candidate for so important a post as Defense. But the nomination of Hagel – along with Kerry at the State Department – sends a clear signal that a second-term Obama, unrestrained by the handicap of reelection, is fully committed to remake America’s role in the world.

Hagel’s supporters say his qualification to be Defense Secretary is his Vet Nam service They underscore his military record with phrases like “highly decorated vet” and “front line combat experience.” In fact, Hagel’s military service record is unremarkable and his military achievements are underwhelming. He served in Viet Nam as an Army enlisted man for one year in the mid-1960s, rising to the rank of sergeant (E-6), a squad level position that reported to a platoon leader – a second or first lieutenant.

Due to a clerical error, he and his brother were in the same unit. In combat he was wounded and injured for which he received two Purple Hearts, one for a shrapnel wound in the chest and the other for burns he received while saving his brother from a flaming vehicle. While not insignificant awards, Purple Hearts are not uncommon in a combat theater. Hagel was also awarded the Vietnam Gallantry Cross, an award also awarded to Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security Director, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

If he becomes Defense Secretary, Hagel will be the first enlisted man to hold the cabinet position and many far more bemedaled generals and admirals will report to him.

After his brief military stint in Viet Nam, Hagel returned to finish college, became a congressional staffer, a lobbyist, and a participant in Reagan’s first presidential campaign, which was rewarded with an appointment to the position of deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration. A spat with his boss led to his resignation. Perhaps that was a personal blessing because, reentering the private sector, Hagel co-founded a cellular company that made him worth multiple millions.

Encouraged to run for Virginia governor, where he had lived for 20 years, he returned instead to his home state of Nebraska where he became president of an investment banking firm and later the Chairman/CEO of one of its portfolio companies, making him richer still. He resigned to run for the vacant Nebraska US senate seat against former government Democrat Ben Nelson, which he won becoming the first Republican senator in two dozen years. He ran for office with the understanding that he would serve only two terms, which he did, but during those two terms he made few friends among the Republican caucus.

Currently, Hagel is a professor at Georgetown University. He is a Director on several boards, including Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission which seeks to make the world nuclear-free, an aspiration similarly held by Obama.

While Hagel was in the Senate, he was an unrelenting critic of Bush 43’s Iraq war policy even though he supported the invasion. As the war began to go badly with the terrorist insurgency, he signed on to a 2007 Democrat-sponsored bill that required troop withdrawal in 120 days. When the military strategy and leadership on the ground changed and the surge was adopted to get military units out of armed compounds and put them traveling among the villages and people, Hagel opposed it, saying it would fail.

Hagel is blunt, abrasive, and critical with colleagues – not demeanor normally found in the cluby culture of the US Senate. He had the second highest staff turnover in the Senate – a good indication that he’s not a fun guy to work for and probably not a good team man.

Calling the surge an escalation of the war and “the most divisive issue since the Viet Nam war” he inferred in a Senate hearing that the Senate lacked courage for not signing on to a non-binding bipartisan resolution which he, Carl Levin (D-MI),  Biden (D-DE), and Olympia Snow (R-ME) had crafted calling the surge strategy "not in the national interest." In the hearing he baited his fellow Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who wouldn’t sign the resolution, “C’mon, what were you elected for? If you want to play it safe, go sell shoes!” Wow! Great sales technique, Chuck!

His anti-Israel comments while in the Senate bordered on anti-Semitic. Out of 100 Senators, he was the only Senator to refuse to sign a letter to Russian president Boris Yeltsin warning that the US foreign aid would be halted if Russian anti-Semitism continued.

He said a Clinton ambassadorial nominee was unqualified to serve because he was “openly, aggressively gay,” a remark for which he later apologized. He opposed military intervention and unilateral sanctions against Iran, favoring diplomatic negotiations instead. In his second senatorial term he shifted left, becoming more liberal in his political views. He floated the idea of a third political party in a book.

So it came as no surprise that when his nomination hearings were held last week, Hagel’s former colleagues on the right side of the aisle had tough questions for him. Few on the Senate Armed Services Committee, regardless of political stripe, however, could have been encouraged by his jaw-dropping, ghastly performance before the Committee. Notwithstanding three rehearsals before a mock committee, Hagel seemed unprepared, his answers lacked cogency, and he was unstudied and uninformed about the ins and outs of running the largest federal agency in government.

When it fell the turn of the most senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), to question Hagel, Inhofe announced that after serving with Hagel in the Senate and speaking with him during his pre-hearings courtesy rounds with each committee member, he would be voting against his confirmation.

On many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests around the world, Senator Hagel's record is deeply troubling, and out of the mainstream. Too often it seems he's willing to subscribe to a worldwide view that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends.

Inhofe was troubled by Hagel’s turnabouts from previously-held positions, saying that they “seem based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs."

When the turn to question passed to John McCain, a one-time a close friend until the surge issue divided them, McCain asked Hagel if he now believed he was right or wrong in calling the surge a “dangerous foreign policy blunder.” Hagel refused to answer and tried to take the question in a different direction, and each time McCain cut him off, finally saying that Hagel was not free to sidetrack the issue until he had answered “yes or no.”

"I'm not going to give you a yes or no – I think it's far more complicated than that. ... I'll defer that judgment to history," Hagel responded, to which McCain snapped "I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it," adding that refusing to answer would impact McCain’s vote for confirmation.

The newest Senator on the committee, Ted Cruz (R-TX) seemed to have caught Hagel off guard by playing two tapes from an Al Jazeera broadcast that featured Hagel as a guest. A caller asserted that Israel was guilty of war crimes and that America is “the world’s bully,” neither of which Hagel disputed. Cruz asked Hagel if he believes Israel has committed war crimes. Hagel said “no” but he wanted to see the “full context” of the interview. For what purpose? He didn’t refute the caller.

Hagel’s testimony became more muddled when he said that he supported Obama’s containment policy regarding Iran’s nuclear capacity. Hagel’s inner George Kennan had led him astray. Obama has publicly committed to prevent Iran from having nuclear arms, not to contain them. Oops!

It took a note handed to him by one of his confirmation handlers to get him on the correct course. Hagel acknowledged that he had just been handed a note, as if none of the Senators noticed, and that he had misspoken; "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment." Democrat Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Levin tried to make the best of the confused mess, saying for the record,

We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment. I just wanted to clarify the clarify.

The faux pas would have been laughable if it hadn’t been so pathetic.

Seeking more clarity on the issue, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS.) asked Hagel to elaborate on the accusation that the Jewish lobby intimidated congressional legislation to favor Israel over Palestine and the Arab league.

So when you talked about the Jewish lobby, were you talking about AIPAC? Were you talking about NORPAC? Were you talking about Christians United for Israel? And do you still believe that their success in this town is because of intimidation and that they are, as you stated, ‘urging upon our government that we do dumb things’?

Hagel scrambled like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

I’ve already said I regret referencing the Jewish lobby. I should have said ‘pro-Israel lobby.’ I think it’s the only time on the record that I’ve ever said that. … On the use of intimidation, I should have used ‘influence,’ I think that would have been more appropriate. … I should not have said ‘dumb” or stupid,’ because I understand, appreciate there are different views on these things.

Not good enough for Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who went to work like a prosecuting attorney: “You said the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here … Name one person in your opinion who’s intimidated by the Israeli lobby in United States Senate.”

“I do not know,” Hagel said. “Well, why would you say it?” Graham replied. “I didn’t have in mind a specific person,” Hagel confessed. “But you said, back then, it makes us do dumb things,” Graham contined. “You can’t name one senator intimidated, now give me one example of the dumb things that we’re pressured to do up here.”

“We were talking in that interview about the Middle East, about positions, about Israel…” Hagel responded. “So give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the Israeli-Jewish lobby to do something dumb regarding the Middle East, Israel, or anywhere else,” said Graham. “I cannot give you an example,” Hagel said.

Graham followed up with another topic about which Hagel is on record as outspoken – our “bloated” defense budget. “How much do we spend on defense?” Graham asked. Sergeant Hagel didn’t know; he guessed about 5%. (The true number is 4% soon to be less than 3%.) Not as much bloat as he thought, it seems. And not as well informed as Sergeant Hagel thought he was.

“Is that historically high or low?” Graham asked. “Well, I think, generally, it depends on real dollars and wars…” Hagel answered. “Are we at war?” Hmm. Yeah, there’s that thing going on in Afghanistan.

The soon to be ex-Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) pursued Hagel’s refusal to sign a letter designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. Hagel explained;

We have never made any part of a legitimate independent government, designated them or made part – made them part of a terrorist organization. We’ve just never done that … We were already in two wars at the time and I thought that this made sense, and so I voted against it.

Oops again! The mullahs and their apocalyptic front man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stole a legitimate election as I have twice blogged. The people rioted, some were killed, and others imprisoned. That doesn’t sound like a legitimate independent government to me!

Graham sorta’ summed it up for any undecideds on the committee by asking Hagel:

Do you believe that the sum total of all of your votes, refusing to sign a letter to the EU asking Hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization; being one of 22 to vote [against] designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization; being one of two, on two occasions, to vote against sanctions that this body was trying to impose on Iran; the statements you’ve made about Palestinians and about the Jewish lobby – all that together, that the image you’ve created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history?

The soon-to-be Secretary of Defense disagreed with Graham’s conclusion, and waffled when asked if he would reconsider those votes if he had it to do again. As far as I’m concerned I’ll take the waffle to mean “no.”

The man performed like, and probably is, a dimwit. Obama would have had to look far and wide to find a more unsuited candidate. Yet, Hagel will likely be confirmed because Democrats outnumber the Republicans and two Republicans have also lined up for confirmation. Senate Democrats seem more concerned about marching in lockstep with Obama and Reid than about their constitutional role to advise and consent on nominations independently of party affiliation and Senate leader “recommendations.” This will be proven when not one Democrat “nay” vote is cast. Not one.

Dissenters will be forced to filibuster. That will delay things but not change the outcome. But a filibuster would be symbolic, even to the marginally-informed American public, that there are some Senators who still take their job seriously. And it would force Reid to find three more Republicans (assuming he holds on to all of the Democrats) to overcome the filibuster. Shame on these Senators! Shame on John McCain, who is talking down a filibuster – in other words, go along in order to get along. Is this a club or a legislative body?

A better solution, one which Obama’s ego and motives in this case won’t allow, would be to withdraw the nomination as was done in the Miers case. In fact, Hagel would serve his legacy better by asking to withdraw – as Harriet allegedly did.

Graham has asked Obama to send a new candidate. Even the New York Times friend-of-the-White-House David Brooks suggested that Harriet Hagel should confirm that Obama still has confidence in him after his miserable confirmation performance. That would at least give Obama an out. Harriet Hagel might be surprised that he’s no longer wanted. After all, following the hearings, the White House issued no ringing endorsement of their bruised and hapless candidate.

If the Republicans accomplished anything in the hearings they showed how unsuited and unqualified this man is for the job. In fact at the conclusion of the hearings, Hagel said:

A number of questions were asked of me today about specific programs: submarine programs, different areas of technology and acquisitions, and our superior technology. And I've said, I don't know enough about it. I don't. There are a lot of things I don't know about. If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do. I will have to.

No doubt he will. And who is going to teach this novice what he doesn’t know? He will be in remedial training during one of the most dangerous times in world history with Iran about to go nuclear and China flexing its muscles. Additionally, the Pentagon is about to undergo a major do-over just about the time Sergeant Hagel moves into the corner office. His boss has promised to slash defense spending, the Army will have to shrink 13% – about 75,000 – to get rid of its “bloat” – the Navy will be left with its smallest fleet since World War I – yes World War ONE not two – and the Air Force is flying bombers that go back to the Harry Truman era, no match for a China committed to expand its influence and maybe fire a few shots to test American readiness and resolve. And then there’s Korea whose Maximum Leader is a child. All the while, Sergeant Hagel will be practicing on his Big Wheels tricycle to drive a 200 mph vehicle in NASCAR.

As I asked at the outset of this blog, what was Obama thinking when he nominated Hagel to fill the shoes of many really great Defense Secretaries we’ve had since World War II ended – men like General George Marshall, Robert McNamara, Clark Clifford, James Schlesinger, Don Rumsfeld (at least his first term), Caspar Weinberger, and Dick Cheney? There must be a dozen better qualified people for this cabinet position.

I think the answer is simple and straightforward. Obama must have a pliable front man for his draconian downsizing of the military – necessary to make national defense a blood donor to his second term domestic agenda. Who better than a Republican anti-nuke, anti-war dove, a Secretary who isn’t going to start thinking independently, and someone who will be little more than a hood ornament. Besides, the fact that he is a Republican (in name only) makes Obama look bipartisan. Like a good soldier, Hagel will salute and execute. In the final analysis, Obama is going to run the Pentagon out of the White House, just as he did in his first term.

Hagel is the ideal person for Obama but not the country. The country needs a strategic thinker who will sift intelligence data and collaborate with experts to identify the security threats we are going to likely face from our enemies. The country needs an arms expert who has a grasp on how to defend our country and its citizens ten years from now, which is about the cycle to research, develop, test, train, and deploy new weapons systems. The country needs a Pentagon leader who can work with egocentric four-star general officers to get them functioning as a team and assure they are spending the taxpayers’ dollars wisely – not on silly and expensive green projects that are pushed on the military by Obama because the military can’t push back against its Commander-in-Chief. The country needs a Defense Secretary that will stand up to Obama as Panetta did to advocate against enfeebling the arsenal of democracy so much that it can no longer fight a two-front war as we had to do 70 years ago.

That’s what the country needs. That’s what the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way need. That’s not what Obama needs.

That’s why he chose Chuck Hagel.