By Donald Lambro
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
WASHINGTON - President Obama's is putting together a new
national security team at the Pentagon and the CIA that is said to be designed
for an era of downsizing.
That may be one of the most troubling issues with the two
men he's nominated, former senator Charles Hagel to be Defense secretary, and
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to head the Central
Intelligence Agency -- though both carry other baggage that's also being raised
by their critics.
Hagel initially backed the war in Iraq, then became its
fiercest critic, even against the troop surge strategy that turned the tide
against al-Qaeda. Then came his insulting, anti-Israel lobby remarks that many
perceived to be anti-Semitic.
And Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, who played a key role
in its, ahem, enhanced interrogation techniques in the aftermath of the
September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then he's voiced concern about the CIA's
expanded and wildly successful paramilitary mission that has led to the stepped
up use of armed drones.
Hagel is now being described by the Washington Post as
"a well-known war skeptic", and someone who "shares Obama's
aversion to military intervention." This, in an age when global terrorism
and rogue nations remain two of the greatest threats to our national security.
What signal does that send?
Absent some new unseen developments, both men are
expected to survive the Senate's confirmation gantlet. But the process to come
will no doubt reopen political wounds and raise serious questions about whether
these two men are best suited to lead our nation's most important national
security agencies.
Hagel will necessarily be put through the wringer over
his past attacks on what he called the "Jewish lobby" and the
influence pro-Israeli groups often exert on Congress. In an interview with
author Aaron David Miller in 2008, he said "the Jewish lobby intimidates a
lot of people up here."
His troubling antipathy toward America's pro-Israel
lobby, which he insists on calling the "Jewish lobby," has crept into
his remarks in the past, one way or another.
"The declaration from Hagel that he is not 'the
senator from Israel' is again a direct attack on Jews' fidelity to the United
States," says Washington Post "Right Turn" blogger Jennifer
Rubin.
"For decades this kind of language has been gaining
acceptance in Europe. But never in America. In elevating Hagel, the president
in a real and troubling way moves us closer to Western Europe," Rubin
wrote this week.
Meantime, as the co-chairman of Obama's intelligence
advisory board, Hagel wants him to start negotiating with the terrorist
Palestinian movement Hamas which does not think Israel has any right to exist.
The White House has mounted a major lobbying effort of
its own to counter Hagel's critics, but thus far with mixed success.
"I don't think the president can afford to lose
another skirmish," Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation
League, a leading Hagel critic, said this week.
Foxman has been heavily lobbied by the West Wing in the
past week to support Hagel's nomination. But in a carefully worded and subdued
statement Monday, he said:
"Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I
respect the president's prerogative."
Responses from other Jewish groups less muted. David
Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee, was reported to have told an
administration official that he was keeping its powder dry: "We're going
to be watching the Senate confirmation hearings, listening carefully, and we'll
determine then our position."
Some Democratic leaders, too, seemed to be less than
enthusiastic in their responses. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said Hagel
"has earned the right to nothing less than a full and fair process in the
Senate. I look forward to fully studying his record and exploring his
views."
And there's also Hagel's mixed record on sanctions toward
a nuclear-armed Iran. He's embraced international sanctions against its
threatening uranium-enrichment that has led to the brink of nuclear weapons
development. But he hasn't drawn a clear red line in the sand as Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta did, signaling a potential military response if Iran doesn't
abandon its path toward nuclear missiles.
Brennan's actions as Obama's senior adviser have also
raised questions about his approach to the deadly use of missile-armed drone
aircraft that have effectively struck terrorist targets. It has been widely
reported that Brennan has sought much more stringent limits on their use, which
Panetta and his successor at the CIA, David Patraeus, escalated over the past
several years.
Republicans are holding their cards close to their vest
on both nominations and there may be more opposition to their confirmation as
the hearings begin. But GOP leaders are signaling that this will not be a slam
dunk for Obama.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said Obama's decision
to name Hagel was "an in-your-face nomination."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Hagel would
be given a "fair hearing", but added that the central question which
needs answering is, "Do his views make sense for that particular
job?"
Newly-elected Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, among other GOP
senators, had already made up his mind before Hagel was chosen, saying it's
"very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support his
nomination."
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has been one of the
president's most relentless national security critics, has problems with both
nominations, saying he has "many questions and concerns."
Obama is dramatically reshaping the direction and tone of
our nation's national security team. In choosing Hagel, Brennan and
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to become secretary of State, America's defense
and foreign policy is shifting sharply further to the left.
This team would probably "look long and hard, adopt
a 'look before you leap' approach, before committing U.S. forces and prestige
to foreign lands," said former State Department official Karl Inderfurth
who worked in the Clinton administration.
But with al Qaeda affiliates and cells sprouting across
North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere, is that the signal we want to send
to our enemies?
No comments:
Post a Comment