Nope, you misread me and the other Hagel boosters I know. The actually-implemented Iran policy of the Obama Administration currently has a key contradiction in it, both because of contradictions within the Obama Administration, and because of the external political pressures exerted on the Obama Administration during its first term, including especially Congressional pressure on the Obama Administration instigated by AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby, acting at the behest of the Netanyahu government.
The contradiction is this: on the one hand, there are people in the Obama Administration who want detente with Iran. On the other hand, the Obama Administration has not yet, as far as we know, put an offer on the table that the Iranians could accept. Meanwhile, under Obama, U.S. and multilateral sanctions have dramatically escalated, to the point that Iranians are dying for lack of medicine, partly because that has been the policy of the Administration, but also significantly because of Congressional pressure, instigated by AIPAC, acting at the behest of the Netanyahu government, that pushed the Obama Administration to sign off on extreme measures that they would not have signed off on otherwise. Hagel's nomination is read by friend and foe as a signal that Obama intends to pursue in his second term the policy that many expected in his first term: serious diplomatic engagement with Iran towards political agreements that will address the nuclear dispute and other disputes and lead to a lifting of sanctions. This is not a small thing, for people who care about such things. It would mean, among other things, that Iranian civilians would no longer die for lack of medicine. It's certainly true, as far as it goes, that Scowcroft, Pickering, Hagel, Luers, etc. never stopped being "establishment" in the sense that they were never dis-invited from establishment cocktail parties. But until now they have not ruled Iran policy. That could change now, if Hagel is confirmed, and is not beaten up too badly on the way in. On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- 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
