JOIN VNN COLUMNIST TEAM | SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
VETERANS NEWS NOW ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | FORUM
|

Stand Up to the Intimidators

It is hard to imagine any future issues offering a conspicuously better place to draw a line in the sand and to start pushing back than this one.

 

by Paul Pillar

The National Interest

 

The effort to slander Chuck Hagel and to torpedo his potential nomination to be secretary of defense has reached such intensity that there is now much more at stake in this nomination than just who will be running the Pentagon over the next four years.

Robert Merry in these spaces has portrayed well the sordidness of the calumny-flingers who make little effort to hide their main reason for going after Hagel, which is that he does not believe in subordinating U.S. interests to the wishes of the right-wing Israeli government and its American backers.

Those in the anti-Hagel campaign who try to make it look as if there are non-Israeli reasons to shoot him down make arguments that move from the sordid to the ridiculous. The Washington Post‘s editorial on the subject is a good example. It tries to portray the former Republican senator from Nebraska as some kind of leftist peacenik, because he suggests there is some trimming that could usefully be done to U.S. defense spending (which is greater than the next 14 biggest military spenders—friends and foes—put together, and is the highest in inflation-adjusted dollars that it has been since World War II) and expresses skepticism about going to war against Iran (which the Post‘s editorialists acknowledge they have also expressed skepticism about, but that doesn’t stop them from portraying the skepticism as somehow a point against Hagel). For a more thorough dismantling of this absurd editorial, see Andrew Sullivan’s exegesisof it.

To the extent the placing of Hagel’s name in the kind of unofficial nomination it is in right now was the result of deliberate balloon-floating by the White House, it is hard to see exactly what the White House thought it was doing. Making the nomination official and letting Hagel speak for himself would do a lot to puncture the falsehoods and smears about him. Maybe letting his name get out as the leading potential nominee was less a calculated act than plain old sloppy leaking. If one wants to give the White House more credit than that, one might postulate that it floated the name so the opponents would have a chance to discredit themselves so much through the sheer outrageousness of their arguments that they would not only lose this political battle but also be weaker in later ones. That way the president might get not only the secretary of defense he wants but also some more running room on issues such as the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There is some valid logic to that. But such bold political jiu-jitsu does not seem to be this president’s usual style. He is more likely to be thinking in the customary way, as discussed by Peter Baker in the New York Times, about conserving political capital, picking one’s fights carefully, and keeping in mind all the other issues he may have to fight about (and he just got another one: gun control).

If the president applies to the nomination of a defense secretary a cautious approach grounded in such thinking, he would be making a mistake. He would be acting without sufficient appreciation for how intimidation works. Intimidation feeds on itself, with successful intimidation encouraging more of the same and failures discouraging further attempts. Neither Chuck Hagel nor anyone else has a right to any cabinet post, but given how this matter has already evolved, if the president now does not nominate him for the defense job it will be universally seen as a caving in to the neocons and Netanyahuites. Mr. Obama will be politically weaker as a result. He will have lost political capital rather than having conserved it. And he will have encouraged more such intimidation in the future.

Conversely, standing up to the intimidators and pushing a Hagel nomination through to confirmation would improve his ability to battle against the same forces on other issues. Even if the White House did not plan it that way, it would be a political plus for the president. More importantly, it would be a blow for decency and reason and a setback for one of the more damaging and tawdry features of American politics.

It is hard to imagine any future issues offering a conspicuously better place to draw a line in the sand and to start pushing back than this one. Based on what has already been said, there is reason to hope that the tawdriness—as James Fallows puts it in an insightful piece on this subject—“has finally gone so far that it will impeach itself.” It impeaches itself with arguments such as that a United States senator or cabinet member putting U.S. interests ahead of the interests of a foreign country or the wishes of a foreign government is somehow a bad thing.


Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts.

He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies.

He blogs at a blog post  at The National Interest’s Web site.

Related articles:

Short URL: http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/?p=219726

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VNN or any other VNN authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Austins School of Spa Technology
ME Online
slow aging
What Price Gold


Posted by on Dec 21 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Editors' Picks, Expert Opinions ME, Middle East Conflicts, News From the Region, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS

To post a comment, you must login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with our site and post your comment.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Legal Notice

Comments Closed

1 Comment for “Stand Up to the Intimidators”

  1. So what is Senator Hagel’s sin?

    Putting U.S. interests ahead of the interests of a foreign country, Israel.

    Wow.

    They have come out of the Trojan Horse and now control Washington. What Hagel did is enough, usually, to get the Zionist-controlled U.S. Senate to block your nomination.

    This time as well? Or will the Democrats grow at least one vertebrae of a spine?

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. Suspicious Death of Journalist Serena Shim: Hypocritical Western Media Remains Silent
  2. Kiev Elections Can’t Sanitise State of Mob Rule
  3. Bolivia expels US ambassador Philip Goldberg
  4. Chandler’s annual Military Members and Veterans Benefits Expo
  5. Opportunities for Veterans Abound in Agriculture
  6. Fifty-One Thousand Troops Diagnosed with Brain Injury
  7. Cold War II: Interview with Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council
  8. U.S. Leaders: “Listen to this Irish Senator”
  9. Philip Giraldi: Stopping Cyber Hate
  10. Brazil under CIA Pressure
  11. Soros and the CIA Now Banking on Neves to Defeat Rousseff
  12. Christian Evangelicals Increasingly Support Palestinian Human Rights
  13. How the Israel Lobby Set Beto O’Rourke Right
  14. Russia hunkers down vis-a-vis West
  15. Israel is losing its friends in the world
  16. The Neocons – Masters of Chaos
  17. Tables turned — Israel on the run
  18. Washington Admits: FSA Equals Fictitious Syrian Army
  19. Terror-scaremongering designed to erode freedoms, stamp out dissent
  20. World Order by Henry Kissinger
  1. Debbie Menon: You write : I think it’s up to the Palestinians to do that. And the Palestinians don’t have a wide...
  2. Old Jules: Whining about the biased press coverage in favor of Israeli spies and US parrots over Iranian spies?...
  3. Old Jules: It’s theirs to do and there is no point in US citizens having an opinion about how they should...
  4. Old Jules: The ambassador’s only doing what he’s told by his bosses, golly. Here is a province with oil...
  5. Old Jules: Good point about Zionist influence. It’s fairly pervasive and to one degree or another it certainly...

Apply for VA Home Loan Now!

Military Veterans Radio

Archives