If I remember correctly, the Obama administration waited about seven nanoseconds after the 2012 exit polls were released on Election Day to announce the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus. Once they knew they had won, they threw Petraeus under the bus immediately. Now, with no more election days to worry about, the administration was only modestly more deliberative in cashiering Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. They also made sure to shovel plenty of dirt on top of him while they were at it.
Whatever the case, Mr. Hagel struggled to fit in with Mr. Obama’s close circle and was viewed as never gaining traction in the administration after a bruising confirmation fight among his old Senate colleagues, during which he was criticized for seeming tentative in his responses to sharp questions…
…In Mr. Hagel’s less than two years on the job, his detractors said he struggled to inspire confidence at the Pentagon in the manner of his predecessors, especially Robert M. Gates…
…Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner, and has sometimes left reporters struggling to describe what he has said in news conferences. In his side-by-side appearances with both General Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the first former enlisted combat soldier to be defense secretary, has often been upstaged.
He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad.
There has been a tendency under recent Democratic presidencies to hire Republicans to run the Pentagon and some of the higher profile intelligence organizations. I’m thinking of folks like James Woolsey, Bill Cohen, Robert Gates, David Petraeus and, of course, Chuck Hagel. With the exception of Cohen, this habit has consistently ended in grief. Gates served President Obama capably at a difficult time, but couldn’t resist trashing the administration once he retired. The others were either disloyal, incompetent, or both.
There’s nothing in the Republicans’ recent history to recommend them as superior on national security, and plenty that argues otherwise. When the people vote for a Democratic president, they have the right to expect Democrats to run our national security apparatus. For many, this is the main and most important distinction between the two parties.
I hope that we see less of these stupid efforts at building bipartisan support for foreign policy in the future. The way the Republicans handled Hagel’s confirmation hearings should have put an end to this habit, and Hagel’s actual performance should end all debate.
Not having a close relationship with President Obama, Secretary of Defense was asked to resign.
The failure inside the White House with NSC advisor Susan Rice has never been more evident. The Syria mess is not the fault of the Pentagon but the buck stops with the President. Hillary Clinton was an absolute failure. Throw in the mess in Ukraine, how can that be Hagel’s fault? Should the US military been more involved for an agressive NATO policy moving boundaries towards Moscow and the Kremlin?
All depends whose side one picks, here is Ms Clinton’s darling President Erdogan of Turkey, another major player in the Syria mess.
Micromanagement of a US President …
[posted on the previous thread about an hour ago – Oui]
In a perfect world I’d agree with you, but only one Democrat comes to mind who could actually get confirmed by the incoming Senate, and his name rhymes with “Flieberman.”
Oh, good grief — here’s Max Boot actually proposing Lieberman.
That was inevitable.
who stabbed Obama in the back as well on the way out the door.
His name isn’t on the top three names being tossed in for consideration but I still would like to see Wes Clark’s name added to the hat.
Why?
Is there even one reason why Clark would be an acceptable nominee? Is it even possible that the Republicans in the Senate would confirm a person that had run for POTUS as a Democrat?
There, sadly, FTFY.
We’re in for at least a year or more of hooting, gibbering, and poo-flinging from both the House and Senate.
They MAY settle down long enough so that the brain-dead “American Electorate’ will forget the last 16 years and think electing Jeb the recursive Bush is a “Good Idea”.
May as well hunker down, lay in a vast and varied supply of booze and Prestone, and settle in for a rough ride.
Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s that he has better creds than our last 6 SOD. That he ran for Pres on Dem ticket is pretty much irrelevant to the duties he’d be tasked with. That the Rep will use his tossing his hat into the campaign as a reason to withhold confirmation, hell, they’re going to try and compromise any candidate for just using toilet paper.
Well every true ‘Murcan knows that toilet paper is for sissies and real men use corn cobs.
What creds are you referring to? Four star general?
SEC/DEF is a civilian position. We have enough medal bedecked poppycocks running our out of control national “security” state. Don’t need one at the head of the agency. Not that Presidents seem all that able to appoint men or women that would be decent at the job.
Take a look at Wiki. Valedictorian in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, 34 years in military and DoD, Supreme Allied Commander. Compare that to the creds of the SoD lineup we’ve had.
How about Heather Wilson? USAF and Rhodes Scholar. Bit hard for a woman to suck up enough to get all those military medals and promotions.
Or David (diaper) Vitter?
Students at US military colleges have done well in getting Rhodes Scholarships. Not as well as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but better than all the others.
But isn’t there anyone that’s not a senior citizen that a Democratic President can appoint?
Love to see Wes confront the Russians in the Ukraine …
○ “I’m not going to start Third World War for you,” Jackson told Clark
Before becoming NATO Commander, Wesley Clark was the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From this vantage point, Clark was well aware of and likely supported the arming of the Bosnian government by accepting contributions from various deep-pocketed Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt. Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries deposited millions of dollars into U.S. coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians and train them in their use through the use of private military contractors like Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI). And when some of the weapons and cash for the Bosnians became “unaccounted for,” where did some of the guns and cash wind up? In the hands of Al Qaeda and Iranian Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) units in Bosnia.
Why do you ferrenerrs always gotta trot out your non-US media sources?
I just want to read about how much freedumb the US spreads around the world!
Hagel’s job was to give cover for the Afghan withdrawal and the military budget cuts that GOP nihilism would force upon the Pentagon.
There isn’t really any need for that cover anymore and Hagel appears to be about as sharp as a bag of marbles.
Be interesting to see who he (tries to) put in there.
I have to say we are reaching the point where an intelligent person simply shouldn’t take on this job.
“Flailing superpower engaged in incoherent global overreach with and emphasis on “shaping” ME chaos seeks “defense” chief. Experience with a paralyzed Congress and gub’mint and deeply unserious, ignorant populace a plus. Email resume, credentials qualifications and references to office of the prez, WH, DC. An Equal Opportunity For Failure employer. Repubs always welcomed.”
The next US “defense” chief should read extensively the literature involving the declining days of the Spanish Empire and its many comical waning military operations. No one ever sees the end coming.
Chuch Hagel was chosen by Obama to implement White House policy for the pull back out of Afghanistan in line with the pullback out of Iraq. Chuck Hagel is a moderate and was envisioned as the right man for the job. He was close to John Kerry. As the policymakers in the White House grew more worried about their miscalculations in Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine, the hawks pushed for more aggressive policy. Obama still has political clout with his European partners who follow him with blindfolds on.
As the civil strife becomes a sectarian conflict and all-out war, the Obama administration under leadership of VP Biden has chosen for a pull to the right. The laudable words for Hillary Clinton as our next president indicates as much. Domestic politics always trumps sound foreign policy towards a peaceful compromise. Watching who will become the next US allies around the Caspian Sea and Eastern Europe to step up aggression towards Putin’s Russia. Vladimir already promised he would step down no later than 2022. Enjoy the ride.
ROTFLMAO at the thought of poor Pooty-Poot being picked on by Obama.
You really shouldn’t be so proud of your ignorant/blind-spots. We have to put up with enough of that from the racists, misogynists, bible-thumpers, and arm-chair warriors on the right.
Look in the mirror, Marie.
wrt what? I’m not stuck in some decades old, Cold War emotional space wrt a country that ceased to exist over twenty years ago. Do you have an inkling of what US neoliberalcons have done to Russia in that time period?
Can’t date your “Israel can do know wrong” stance. Perhaps believing that Uris’ “Exodus” was real and not fiction the way many in the south believe “Gone with the Wind” real. Or maybe when Israel won the Six Day War. Or maybe when Israel was seen to have kick-ass commandos. Or maybe you’re just hostile to Islam and Muslims the way your ancestors were towards Jews.
It’s not easy to break out of and away from that post WWII propaganda that was thick in this country as a generation grew up. It was a challenge that many of us didn’t shy away from during the Vietnam War. Allowed our eyes to be opened. To study histories not so contaminated with “US exceptionalism.” Not enough of us.
Calling us America hating DFHs was easier for you. Not even Chalmers Johnson got until late in his life that DFHs weren’t naive nor ignorant, but he had the decency to apologize. So, you and your family are confronting now economic challenges that you didn’t anticipate. The US MIC is on a permanent war footing. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. And you still can’t see how all that was set up and set into motion when back when others were pointing it out. The difference between you and me, is that I didn’t want and vocally rejected the crappy conditions we find ourselves in today. This is what you asked for; so, you haven’t earned the right to whine. Of course, white men in this country always feel entitled to whine about anything.
Israel can do plenty wrong, including deliberately shooting up a US vessel. Doesn’t mean that people peaceably praying should be hacked up or rockets fired into civilian neighborhoods.
Look in the mirror and see you are still in love with the myth of communism not the reality of the gulag and the nomenclatura.
What are you fifteen years old and stuck in 1962? Not many younger than the 1930s radicals romanticized USSR style so-called communism. The gulags were well known to those in my age group. At #12 on the ICPS prison population rankings Russia is still performing poorly on human rights. But the US is #2 (thank goodness for Seychelles or we’d be #1)
Communist China is working well these days, and that’s scaring the bejeezus out of USians. (Not that authoritarian, fascist state operations of the collective in any society is my cup of tea. But honestly that’s more a variant of how things operate in capitalist USA than what Marx advocated.) While not awesome, the CPC of the PRC planners do appear to be more adept than US government planners. China is building infrastructure while USians continue to watch their public bridges deteriorate. KM of high speed rail in operation: China 14,421; US 0.
Do people in the UK and France brag today about having built the engineering marvel, Concorde SST (now retired for a decade and not replaced because of the operating costs and high pollution levels)? Yeah, we went to the moon — another engineering feat. But today can’t even get to the ISS. One reason we might want to play nice with Putin.
When the people vote for a Democratic president, they have the right to expect Democrats to run our national security apparatus.
For many, this is the main and most important distinction between the two parties.
Really?
I would not have thought so.
I don’t think the deep state allows for someone with liberal, peace-loving tendencies to become Secretary of Defense.
That’s the problem these days with not recognizing the deep state. We are constantly failed by politics.
For all countries, domestic politics always trumps the soundness of foreign policy. Thus the National Security Act of 1947 and the eight-year-long Republican hissy-fit about Communism (with a capital C).
In the US in the 21st century, the Secretary of Defense must be acceptable to the Republican caucus of the Senate even if appointed by a Democrat — thus Gates and Hagel. The other guy was reputed to have green eyeshades; it didn’t turn out that way.
As Oui points out, we have a huge problem with neo-cons and Clintonista R2P people embedded in the White House and in State.
And the military resents them running their act.
So what Democrat is capable of running the largest employer in the world? Probably not someone any of us have heard of before. Who was the DoD under-under-secretary who was fired during the Bush era for exposing fraud? Was her name Bunny something?
So there are former generals, former or sitting members of Congress, high officials from other parts of the administration, prominent CEOs–that’s pretty much the folks who have the resume.
Let’s try out some scenarios.
McCain – to shut him up.
Kerry to Defense, Rice to State, Power to National Security Adviser, less pro-Israel diplomat to UN
Jim Webb – to clear the red carpet for Ms. Inevitable
Carl Levin – who is available, knowledgeable, and politically expendable
Hillary Clinton – to clear the path for Joe Biden
Mitch McConnell – to open up the Senate
Harry Reid – as punishment
David Petraeus – as punishment
Eric Shinseki – as an apology for asking him to fall on his sword at VA
An Undersecretary of Defense, like Michael G. Vickers, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Andrew Weber, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Programs, or Madelyn Credon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs – who can be appointed as an Acting Secretary pending Congress’s confirmation of an appointment.
Hagel is remaining in place until a replacement is in place–but that does not mean that the replacement waits on confirmation by Congress
Lieberman – a final illustration of the lameness of the President’s personnel choices – I don’t see this one as likely in the current political climate and as a lame duck
I think Obama should be prepared to appoint a couple of different people to be acting Sec. of Defense over the rest of his term as well as acting AG. No one he proposes and could work with will receive approval from the Senate. Why bother?
We could probably look back to JFK to see the roots of the penchant for Democratic Presidents to appoint GOP SEC/DEF. Technically, it goes back further to Truman’s appointment of Robert Lovett — but that had more to do with Lovett having been a trusted undersecretary to George Marshall than his political affiliation. So, it was JFK’s selection of the Republican Robert McNamara that got it going. Should have ended there as well given his horrendous performance.
Actually it goes back further before Truman: how about FDR naming Republican Henry Stimson to head the War Dept (predecessor to the DoD) during WWII, along with Republican Frank Knox to head the Navy dept.
Truman also named Republican Rbt Patterson to head the War dept, prior to Lovett.
As for JFK, he had initially wanted Lovett, but the latter declined out of age/health reasons. And McNamara was hardly a rock-ribbed conservative Repub — he supposedly told admin people that he had voted for Kennedy in the 60 election. Probably a mod/lib Republican at the time.
JFK also had some solid reasons to have a Repub in that slot — to give him bipartisan cover as he was elected by the narrowest margin of the 20th C, and as a New England liberal Dem who had expressed skepticism of the cold warrior line while in the senate he was vulnerable to being perceived as too squishy soft on communism.
Compared to Kennedy, the easily twice-elected Obama had far fewer good reasons to name a Republican twice to the Defense top spot. Particularly awful was his allowing Gates to stay on during his first term.
It’s difficult to look further back than the end of WWII because there was no DOD and Republicans in general weren’t any crazier on foreign affairs than Democrats.
But maybe we should turn the question around and ask when the last Republican President appointed a Democrat to the highest civilian level defense position.
I don’t believe it’s ever happened.
Probably because there was no perceived political value in doing so: the Repub president comes with a built-in political perception advantage as being strong on defending the country and its many interests scattered all over the globe. Whereas Dems have seen a need to obtain bipartisan political advantage in getting a Repub into that slot to make up for their alleged weakness on national security.
And Republicans are as good at defense and foreign policy as they are on the economy. When the only two choices are “we suck at both” or “we suck less at both,” odd that “we suck …” wins more often than the less suck.
sure. why not. get a Dem.