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:

VNN

A Media Info Site at Veterans Today Network
Since 2011, VNN has operated as part of the Veterans Today Network; a group that operates over 50 plus media, information and service online sites for U.S. Military Veterans.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
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

Posted by on 4:31 am, With 0 Reads, Filed under Middle East Wars, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

One Response to "Stand Up to the Intimidators"

  1. John  December 22, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    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?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK