This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/chuck-hagel-senate-hearing-discredit
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Chuck Hagel's Senate hearing: a discredit to all concerned | Chuck Hagel's Senate hearing: a discredit to all concerned |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| Under article 2, section 2 of the US constitution, the Senate is granted responsibility to "advise and consent" on "Officers of the United States" nominated by the president of the United States. After Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, though, it's worth questioning whether this is still a good idea. | |
| The hearing was, for lack of a better word, an embarrassment for all concerned – Republicans, Democrats and the nominee himself. Rather than a much-needed conversation about coming cuts to the US military budget or the drawdown from Afghanistan and the so-called pivot to Asia, the nation was treated to a risible array of hyperbolic, ill-informed, gotcha questions and expressions of narrow parochial concerns that had almost nothing to do with the challenges facing the next secretary of defense. | |
| Let's start with the nominee. To put it bluntly, Chuck Hagel did not acquit himself well. He was sluggish, tongue-tied and practically meek in the face of constant badgering by Republicans. He's far from the most dynamic speaker, stammers constantly and appears to agonize over every word he utters. This gave GOP Senators every opportunity to constantly interrupt him with even more leading and obnoxious questions. | Let's start with the nominee. To put it bluntly, Chuck Hagel did not acquit himself well. He was sluggish, tongue-tied and practically meek in the face of constant badgering by Republicans. He's far from the most dynamic speaker, stammers constantly and appears to agonize over every word he utters. This gave GOP Senators every opportunity to constantly interrupt him with even more leading and obnoxious questions. |
| That Hagel appeared completely unprepared for questions that should have been obvious in advance is a head-scratcher. Hagel's problem seemed to be that he went into the hearing refusing to disagree with the committee or say anything provocative that would risk raising the ire of Republicans. Clearly, that was a poor, ill-conceived strategy that, instead, left him grasping at straws as Republican after Republican pummeled away on him. | That Hagel appeared completely unprepared for questions that should have been obvious in advance is a head-scratcher. Hagel's problem seemed to be that he went into the hearing refusing to disagree with the committee or say anything provocative that would risk raising the ire of Republicans. Clearly, that was a poor, ill-conceived strategy that, instead, left him grasping at straws as Republican after Republican pummeled away on him. |
| Indeed, what made Hagel such an interesting secretary of defense candidate was that he was willing to make provocative statements about national security and the actual limits on US power. This week, we saw the neutered version of that candidate and it wasn't pretty. | Indeed, what made Hagel such an interesting secretary of defense candidate was that he was willing to make provocative statements about national security and the actual limits on US power. This week, we saw the neutered version of that candidate and it wasn't pretty. |
| In defense of Hagel, though, it's hard to imagine a sadder display of senatorial prerogatives than what the country witnessed in Thursday's hearing. There were basically three categories of questions asked of Hagel: | In defense of Hagel, though, it's hard to imagine a sadder display of senatorial prerogatives than what the country witnessed in Thursday's hearing. There were basically three categories of questions asked of Hagel: |
| • "Is Israel a great country, or is it the greatest? And if it's the former, can you explain your lack of support for America's most important ally?" | • "Is Israel a great country, or is it the greatest? And if it's the former, can you explain your lack of support for America's most important ally?" |
| • "Why don't you think Iran is crazy, unbalanced and a military competitor of the United States, as I do?" | • "Why don't you think Iran is crazy, unbalanced and a military competitor of the United States, as I do?" |
| • "Let me tell you more about the vital national security rule played by the weapons system or military base located in my home state." | • "Let me tell you more about the vital national security rule played by the weapons system or military base located in my home state." |
| I'm not really exaggerating when I say these three themes accounted for practically 80% of the questions asked of Hagel, particularly by Republicans. In fact, according to a tweet from Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran that made the rounds yesterday evening, Israel was mentioned 136 times in the hearing and Iran 135 times: | I'm not really exaggerating when I say these three themes accounted for practically 80% of the questions asked of Hagel, particularly by Republicans. In fact, according to a tweet from Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran that made the rounds yesterday evening, Israel was mentioned 136 times in the hearing and Iran 135 times: |
| At Hagel hearing, 136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali. | At Hagel hearing, 136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali. |
| — Rajiv Chandrasekaran (@rajivwashpost) January 31, 2013 | — Rajiv Chandrasekaran (@rajivwashpost) January 31, 2013 |
| Even though the defense secretary nominee said repeatedly that he supports Israel, that he considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and that he wouldn't take military force off the table in dealing with its potential nuclear program, Republicans mined practically every statement ever made by Hagel (and often taken out of context) in an effort to assert that he doesn't hold as uncompromising a position on these issues as they do. | Even though the defense secretary nominee said repeatedly that he supports Israel, that he considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and that he wouldn't take military force off the table in dealing with its potential nuclear program, Republicans mined practically every statement ever made by Hagel (and often taken out of context) in an effort to assert that he doesn't hold as uncompromising a position on these issues as they do. |
| The day reached its point of high comedy when Senator Lindsey Graham began interrogating Hagel on whether he believes – as he allegedly said several years ago – that the so-called "Jewish lobby" causes US senators to occasionally do dumb things that harm US foreign policy. Hagel hemmed and hawed on the question when, in an ideal world, he should have said, "Yes, and this hearing is example A." | The day reached its point of high comedy when Senator Lindsey Graham began interrogating Hagel on whether he believes – as he allegedly said several years ago – that the so-called "Jewish lobby" causes US senators to occasionally do dumb things that harm US foreign policy. Hagel hemmed and hawed on the question when, in an ideal world, he should have said, "Yes, and this hearing is example A." |
| In fact, after a while, it was hard to figure out if Hagel was the nominee for secretary of defense or "Israel's new bestie", so obsessed were Republican Senators with how Hagel views the US-Israel relationship. It was a demoralizing spectacle. | In fact, after a while, it was hard to figure out if Hagel was the nominee for secretary of defense or "Israel's new bestie", so obsessed were Republican Senators with how Hagel views the US-Israel relationship. It was a demoralizing spectacle. |
| As we saw during the GOP primaries last year, the new apparent litmus test for being a foreign policy-maker in the US government appears to be the extent to which you offer unconditional support for basically everything that Israel does (even when it goes against stated US policy). At one point, new Texas Senator Ted Cruz tried to link Hagel to a speech given by Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat who has been publicly critical of American support for the Jewish state, and in particular, the domestic lobbyists that defend Israel. | As we saw during the GOP primaries last year, the new apparent litmus test for being a foreign policy-maker in the US government appears to be the extent to which you offer unconditional support for basically everything that Israel does (even when it goes against stated US policy). At one point, new Texas Senator Ted Cruz tried to link Hagel to a speech given by Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat who has been publicly critical of American support for the Jewish state, and in particular, the domestic lobbyists that defend Israel. |
| When Cruz could not identify an obvious link between the two men, he backed off. But the moment was chilling because the implications of Cruz's questioning wasn't hard to deduce: simply having a relationship with Freeman and his controversial views on Israel would have been enough to indict Hagel. | When Cruz could not identify an obvious link between the two men, he backed off. But the moment was chilling because the implications of Cruz's questioning wasn't hard to deduce: simply having a relationship with Freeman and his controversial views on Israel would have been enough to indict Hagel. |
| This is quite frankly modern-day McCarthyism: guilt by association with those who hold differing views. It was the low point of the day in which the depths of practically every valley of squalid foreign policy discourse was plumbed. That a hearing on the fitness of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense was dominated by a discussion of a country that is not even a military ally of the United States – and which, in the just the last three months, has take actions on settlement construction that run precisely counter to US policy – offered compelling evidence of the disproportionate and unhealthy role that Israel plays in US foreign policy debates. | This is quite frankly modern-day McCarthyism: guilt by association with those who hold differing views. It was the low point of the day in which the depths of practically every valley of squalid foreign policy discourse was plumbed. That a hearing on the fitness of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense was dominated by a discussion of a country that is not even a military ally of the United States – and which, in the just the last three months, has take actions on settlement construction that run precisely counter to US policy – offered compelling evidence of the disproportionate and unhealthy role that Israel plays in US foreign policy debates. |
| Almost as depressing was the panel's discussion of Iran. It was bad enough that New York Democratic Kirsten Gillibrand called Iran an "existential threat" to the United States, or that senators kept referring to an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, according the IAEA and America's own intelligence agencies, doesn't actually exist. | Almost as depressing was the panel's discussion of Iran. It was bad enough that New York Democratic Kirsten Gillibrand called Iran an "existential threat" to the United States, or that senators kept referring to an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, according the IAEA and America's own intelligence agencies, doesn't actually exist. |
| My personal lowlight came when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pushed Hagel to answer why he thought a nuclear Iran might be containable or even worth talking to, considering that, in her words, the country's leaders are not "sane". Consider the implications of such a comment. If Iran is not sane, not containable and not able to be reason with, then we might as well bomb and invade them tomorrow because, clearly, there is no negotiating with "crazy" people. Ladies and gentlemen; your United States Senate. | My personal lowlight came when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pushed Hagel to answer why he thought a nuclear Iran might be containable or even worth talking to, considering that, in her words, the country's leaders are not "sane". Consider the implications of such a comment. If Iran is not sane, not containable and not able to be reason with, then we might as well bomb and invade them tomorrow because, clearly, there is no negotiating with "crazy" people. Ladies and gentlemen; your United States Senate. |
| But from listening to the questions, one might not know that there are currently 66,000 US troops fighting a war in Afghanistan. It was barely touched on – mentioned only a handful of times in the day's proceeding. | But from listening to the questions, one might not know that there are currently 66,000 US troops fighting a war in Afghanistan. It was barely touched on – mentioned only a handful of times in the day's proceeding. |
| Al-Qaida: that got mentioned twice. China: hardly came up. Payroll and healthcare issues, which are a huge part of the Pentagon budget: barely referenced. The growing epidemic of military suicides and sexual assault: each were raised once. | Al-Qaida: that got mentioned twice. China: hardly came up. Payroll and healthcare issues, which are a huge part of the Pentagon budget: barely referenced. The growing epidemic of military suicides and sexual assault: each were raised once. |
| Instead, when given the chance, senators were far more interested in referencing the military spending in their own states that is, oh, so vital to national security. Thus, we were presented with Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about the importance of submarines to the US fleet – subs that just happen to be built in Groton Connnecticut; or Jeanne Shaheen and Angus King inquiring about naval building – for example, at the shipyards in their home states of New Hampshire and Maine; Tim Kaine of Virginia, which is home to a huge military and contracting footprint, warning about the dangers of sequestration military cuts; and Deb Fischer, inquiring about the (false) claim that Hagel supports unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, which, of course, coincidentally touches on the presence of the United States strategic command (USSC) in her home state of Nebraska. | Instead, when given the chance, senators were far more interested in referencing the military spending in their own states that is, oh, so vital to national security. Thus, we were presented with Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about the importance of submarines to the US fleet – subs that just happen to be built in Groton Connnecticut; or Jeanne Shaheen and Angus King inquiring about naval building – for example, at the shipyards in their home states of New Hampshire and Maine; Tim Kaine of Virginia, which is home to a huge military and contracting footprint, warning about the dangers of sequestration military cuts; and Deb Fischer, inquiring about the (false) claim that Hagel supports unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, which, of course, coincidentally touches on the presence of the United States strategic command (USSC) in her home state of Nebraska. |
| It's almost as if the nation's actual wars, actual troops and actual national security challenges were of little concern to the assembled senators. | It's almost as if the nation's actual wars, actual troops and actual national security challenges were of little concern to the assembled senators. |
| One must be careful about romanticizing the past glories of the Senate and the armed services committee, but still, there did used to be a time when there were senators who approached national security concerns and issues related to the military with some level of seriousness and sobriety. Such attributes were in meager presence on Thursday. | One must be careful about romanticizing the past glories of the Senate and the armed services committee, but still, there did used to be a time when there were senators who approached national security concerns and issues related to the military with some level of seriousness and sobriety. Such attributes were in meager presence on Thursday. |
| All in all, this was not the Senate's finest moment. For a nation that spends $600bn on its military and considers itself, unself-consciously a global leader, this was a woeful display of partisan politics and parochialism – with a nominee who appeared embarrassingly ill-prepared for perhaps the nation's most important cabinet position. | All in all, this was not the Senate's finest moment. For a nation that spends $600bn on its military and considers itself, unself-consciously a global leader, this was a woeful display of partisan politics and parochialism – with a nominee who appeared embarrassingly ill-prepared for perhaps the nation's most important cabinet position. |
Previous version
1
Next version