The Clarion Call
The Obama administration’s decision to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel has undoubtedly been the source of partisan controversy since Christmas. Since 2002, the Nebraskan congressman—who dutifully secured two purple hearts as a veteran during his time serving in Vietnam—has puzzled political analysts with his bizarre deviations from his rank-and-file conservatives on major foreign policy questions. His antics range from bizarre positions concerning the US-Israeli alliance and the Iranian Nuclear proliferation to blatantly inaccurate predictions with respect to the Iraq Surge in 2007.
Most troubling of late, however, is Hagel’s bumbling and inarticulate performance at his recent confirmation hearing. The strikingly unrehearsed Hagel was unprepared to respond crisply to the exceedingly pointed GOP questions, which he and his advisers surely knew were due, given the whirlwind of controversy surrounding his nomination in the first place, and given Hagel’s reputation as an unorthodox Republican.
That Hagel was so unprepared to withstand the onslaught which McCain and Graham unleashed is perplexing. Even more bewildering is the subpar quality of his offered responses.
First, he botched a direct question regarding his mistaken prediction that the 2007 surge in Iraq would fail. McCain brooded over the opportunity to address the Senator, taking him to task on his failure to support the escalation of involvement. The Nebraskan refused to admit that he had been in error, which incited McCain’s ire:
“Your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether I vote for your confirmation or not,” remarked McCain.
The perception that Hagel’s record of inaccurate predictions on foreign policy might continue is growing, even among dispassionate observers and moderate journalists.
Second, and more embarrassingly for Hagel according to the New York Times, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham directed Mr. Hagel to “name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.” Mr. Hagel, who in 2006 claimed that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates Congress, failed to name even one example, and admitted to this with a sort of lamblike submission. Ted Cruz, who arranged for Senate aides to play a damning recording, insinuated that Hagel believed that Israel had committed war crimes. In 2009, Hagel wrote a letter to Obama, urging him to initiate negotiations and direct talks with Hamas, a position which the Washington Post calls “so extreme that” even Obama seemed appalled.
Third, although (the otherwise meek and equivocating) Hagel set forth an assertive and staunchly forceful endorsement of American might in order to stave off claims that he would oversee the dwindling of America’s diplomatic and military influence abroad, conservatives on the panel expressed skepticism toward his commitment to this worldview.
Of particular worry was the ambiguity of his stance toward remedying the Iranian nuclear crisis. In 2007 Hagel wanted to open direct, unconditional talks with Iran, a position which still baffles foreign policy strategists. Moreover, Hagel’s history of opposition toward “keeping all (including military) options on the table” with respect to prevention seems troubling, given that the agency which he’ll oversee may very well be forced, sometime in the next 18 months, to launch a preemptive military strike in conjunction with Israel against the Persian state.
In a moment that caused both sides of the aisle to grow weary, Hagel promised that he strongly supported the Administration’s (non-existent) support of “containing” Iran, a claim which is self-evidently preposterous, since Obama supports prevention, and not containment. This blunder was so striking that Hagel had to be handed a note reminding him that no such “containment” policy exists.
In light of his prior votes against imposing harsh sanctions on the Persian state, against declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and his tepid support for the US-Israel alliance, the prospect of Hagel overseeing operations at the Pentagon has proved harrowing for skeptics and casual observers alike.
After all, how can a man who is to oversee and operate one of the most vital national security and intelligence organs in the country, be so confused about his administration’s core foreign policy stances (especially one of the most critical of national security questions)? During the hearing, there were points at which it appeared that Hagel didn’t even know his own position on certain matters—like sequestration and defense budget slashing—that will be of such spectacular import during the coming months of possible fiscal austerity.
The matter has even irritated a few Democrats. Most notably, reports Politico, former White House secretary David Gibbs remarked on a NBC “Meet the Press” panel that he found it “disconcerting” that Hagel was not ready for some of the questions directly linked to running the Pentagon.
“The disconcerting thing, obviously, for anybody that watched it was [that] he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that, quite frankly, he knew were coming,” Gibbs said. Having witnessed her colleague succumb to McCain’s relentless siege, even Claire McCaskill attested to his impotency.
Furthermore, although White House strategists are confident that the Nebraskan will be confirmed, none have argued that Hagel performed well during the hearing. In fact, Hagel has created second guessing in the White House. The New York Times and Washington Post report that, according to a member of Obama’s team of advisers on Iran, the stumbling performance seemed “somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible.”
At this juncture, it remains unclear why, precisely, Obama decided to select Hagel to replace Panetta, who insists that Hagel was victimized by an inquisition of overzealous conservatives.
What is clear, however, is the decidedly acute irony which has become evident to historically-minded observers of this debacle. This is a man who not only once claimed that Sarah Palin (a staunch opponent of Obama) was qualified to be Vice President in 2008, but whose record is “precisely the anti-sanctions, anti-Israel stance” which Obama furiously denied was the embodiment of his foreign policy worldview in the 2012 election.
We can now candidly declare that politics makes for strange (and strikingly misguided) bedfellows.
Very comforting, no?
Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu