« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Is Chuck Hagel a stalking horse for Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense?

And does he know it?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 18th, 2012 at 09:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Washington Post‘s editorial board is the latest group to jump on the God, please, not Chuck Hagel bandwagon:

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

Interestingly, the word ‘Israel’ appears nowhere in that op-ed – but the name “Michèle Flournoy” did.  Flournoy was a former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who was rumored to be in the running for SecDef in 2008.  Obviously, that didn’t happen – but it’s interesting on how she’s now being quietly touted as Barack Obama’s Plan B.  Which would normally be a problem for Obama, except that by now everybody in politics has pretty much internalized that Good Secretary of Defense pick = Republican.  If the GOP simply can’t tolerate Obama’s token Republican choice, then, well, that frees him up for the candidate that he wanted*.  A historic candidate, no less.

And, honestly? Chuck Hagel would be a bad choice.  A really, really, really bad choice; at the very least, he’s got some bad ‘uns going to bat for him right now. As I said four years ago: we could do worse than Flournoy.  I mean, I’d prefer a proper Republican in the Secretary of Defense spot, but then I’d also prefer a proper Republican in the Presidential one, so we are working with limited options here.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Or, at least, the candidate that Barack Obama can plausibly claim to have retroactively wanted all along.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • commonsenseobserver

    I’d rather give him who he wants than let Chuck Hagel make a fool of the Republican Party in a way Robert Gates or Ray LaHood never could.

  • smagar

    I wonder if the White House hopes that smoke generated from the Hagel nomination could help obscure Kerry’s slide into SecState. If we’re all focused on Hagel, or Susan Rice, that increases the chance of Kerry sneaking into Foggy Bottom with a minimum of brouhaha.

    Of course, the SwiftBoat Vets, plus the testimony of Vietnam POWs (Paul Galanti, Bud Day) might complicate the White House’s plans.

    IMO, if enemies of America use YOUR voice and YOUR words and YOUR actions to torture American POWs, that disqualifies you from being America’s chief diplomat. By all means, be Massachusetts’ senior senator. That’s MA’s call. If, however, you are going to represent ALL of us, then you deserve the scrutiny of ALL of us.

  • gmat

    I hope not. 1) It would be a fascinating confirmation hearing to watch, and 2) Hagel would be an excellent SecDef.

    Hagel can be expected to ask as a restraint on Washington’s natural interventionist tendencies, and that’s good enough for me.

    As to Israel, Israel surely has the resources to look after its own interests. As to US policy re Israel, I like the idea of having a SecDef (and a SecState, for that matter) who will ask the obvious questions: What is the benefit of this policy? What is the cost of this policy? Is the benefit minus the cost a negative or a positive number?