On 2013-01-13, at 7:47 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > This liberal and radical doesn't see the import of the distinction you're > trying to make. Bringing the realists back in from the cold could indeed > represent a bold new departure in Mideast policy by the administration. The > realists want to have detente with Iran. That could be a very big deal.
Your assumption is that the national security/ foreign policy establishment has to be brought "back in from the cold". Its most prominent members haven't been out in the cold since they were temporarily displaced by the aggressively overconfident neocons (Wolfowitz, Perle, Woolsey, Bolton, Cheney, Abrams, and the rest of the New American Century crowd) during the first term Bush administration. When the Iraq adventure blew up in their faces, the old pros were called back to pull the second term Bush administration's chestnuts out of the fire by crafting a face-saving exit strategy through the medium of the (bipartisan) Iraq Study Group. The group was led by James Baker (R) and Lee Hamilton (D), included future Obama appointees Leon Panetta and William Gates, and was also supported by, among others, Chuck Hagel. You are not as expert as you profess to be if you think that the present defence and intelligence establishment, the military high command, and the Obama administration want other than to "have detente with Iran" and that they haven't been pursuing that objective, to the chagrin of the Netanyahu government, for the past four years. Hagel does not in any way represent a departure from that policy. If the US is improbably drawn into war with Iran, it will be because the military and state apparatus decided for reasons of its own to change course. You can be certain that Hagel, far from being able to prevent such a course change, will be justifying the aggression as Defence Secretary much as Colin Powell, whatever his reservations, did as Secretary of State during the invasion of Iraq. In a nutshell, the problem with the Hagel boosters is that they see a contradiction between the former Nebraska senator's views and the foreign policy which the Obama administration has pursued during its first term where no such contradiction exists. > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013-01-12, at 11:47 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > it looks to me like Obama chose Hagel so that he could easily get > > dronemeister/torture fan Brennan in to run the CIA. Hagel gets all the > > flack. > > Perhaps, but I think there may be wider considerations at play - although not > the kind perceived by some hopeful liberals and radicals, ie. that the > nomination signals a bold new departure in Mideast policy by the > administration. > > Instead, I think Obama chose Hegel because, like Gates before him, Hegel is > representative of the previously dominant, but now disaffected, faction of > the Republican party which broke with doctrinaire conservative Republican > right over Iraq. They correctly perceived the unilateral use of US ground > forces under Bush as a reckless adventure, and continue to favour > multilateral intervention relying on sanctions, the use of air power, and the > internal subversion of regimes opposed to US imperialism. In this sense, far > from being a maverick, Hagel's "realist" views place him squarely within the > bipartisan military and foreign policy establishment whose best-known public > spokesmen have been the Republican Brent Scowcroft and the Democrat Zbigniew > Brzezinski. > > The administration concurs with this bipartisan military and foreign policy > consensus.On the domestic front, Obama and the Democrats have also since 2008 > been trying to peel off discouraged "moderate" Republicans like Hagel, > Scowcroft, Powell, etc. from the GOP by naming them to the Cabinet and moving > into their political space. The administration meanwhile takes its liberal > base for granted because it knows that, while it complains, it has nowhere > else to go. > > Here's Scowcroft on Hagel: > > Scowcroft weighs in on the Hagel nomination > By Josh Rogin > Foreign Policy > January 9, 2013 > > Republican foreign-policy realists haven't changed their tune over the years, > but some in the GOP have moved away from the realists, such as defense > secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, according to former national security advisor > Brent Scowcroft. > > "We haven't moved; the Republican party has moved," Scowcroft told The Cable > in an interview. "I have been a lifelong Republican and I hold to what I are > my own beliefs, which happen to be core Republican beliefs, but many in the > party have taken a different course." > > Scowcroft is one of several senior former GOP officials, including Secretary > of State Colin Powell, to back the Hagel nomination in the face of opposition > from half a dozen GOP senators and groups associated with the neoconservative > and hawkish sides of the Republican foreign policy community. Scowcroft said > the GOP is rooted in the realist principles he still espouses. > > "The neocons go clear back to the 1970s. They were Democrats, then became > sort of Republicans," he said. "I'm who I am. Whether the party wants to > desert me, that's their privilege." > > Hagel's controversial comments from years past, such as when he once referred > to the "Jewish lobby" or his longstanding opposition to unilateral sanctions, > shouldn't bar him from serving as defense secretary, according to Scowcroft. > > "He is first and foremost an American and he takes an American perspective on > everything he discusses," he said. "I'm frankly surprised [by the > controversy], because he says what he believes at the time and there is a > core in what he has said that makes some sense. Would you rather have someone > who has never said anything?" > > Scowcroft joined with several other former officials in both parties to sign > a letter in support of Hagel las month on the letterhead of the "Bipartisan > Group," a loose association of former officials that includes Hagel. The > Cable reported that horse racing gambler Bill Benter paid to have that letter > advertised in Politico's Playbook newsletter. > > But the Bipartisan Group has no further plans to act on behalf of Hagel and > is not working directly with the Obama administration on the Hagel defense > effort. > > "This is a group that got together to write a letter to the president in 2008 > about the Palestinian peace process and then got together again to write this > letter," said Scowcroft. "There's no organization, there's no strategy, > there's no nothing as far as I am concerned. It was a one-off thing. That's > the whole story as far as I know." > > Scowcroft said it was "strong and brave" of President Barack Obama to choose > a Republican such as Hagel, but he does not think this necessarily means > Obama is cementing a foreign policy legacy that tracks with the Republican > realist view of the world. > > "The president on foreign policy is fairly eclectic,' he said. "It's a > promising move. Whether it represents anything broader than that, I'm not > prepared to say." > > http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/09/scowcroft_the_gop_left_me_and_hagel?wp_login_redirect=0 > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
