[Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald: Chuck Hagel and liberals: what are the priorities?

Sat Jan 5 20:00:01 UTC 2013

This is why I love Glenn Greenwald. No-one else with his reach is doing
this: challenging every thoughtless slogan, answering every argument,
touching every base.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israel-democrats

Chuck Hagel and liberals: what are the priorities?

As Obama prepares to nominate the controversial former senator, the key
question is whether Democrats will help neocons oppose him

   - Glenn Greenwald <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald>
   - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Saturday 5 January 2013
   07.47 EST

Numerous<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/04/obama_expected_to_pick_hagel_as_opponents_prepare_for_a_fight>
 reports<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16353378-hagel-likely-to-be-nominated-for-defense-secretary-next-week?lite>
from
Friday indicate<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/04/sources-obama-to-pick-chuck-hagel-for-secretary-of-defense.html>
that
President Obama, possibly as early as Monday, will name Chuck
Hagel<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/chuck-hagel> as
his nominee to replace Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary. Many of the most
right-wing GOP Senators have already categorically
vowed<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cornyn-will-oppose-hagel-nomination_690878.html>
that
they will oppose<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-coats-hagel-has-had-so-much-disrespect-military_690807.html>
the
nomination of this decorated combat veteran and two-term GOP Senator from
Nebraska, claiming he's hostile to
Israel<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israel>,
"soft" on Iran <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran> and anti-military.
Hagel's confirmation thus likely hinges on the willingness of Democrats to
support it.

But before Hagel was nominated, numerous Democratic partisans and various
liberals already expressed reservations or even outright opposition. Some
of those, such as Sen. Chuck
Schumer<http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/surprise-schumer-refuses.html>
 and Rep. Eliot
Engel<http://freebeacon.com/flashback-engel-hagel-has-endemic-hostility-toward-israel/>,
are driven (as usual) by the same mentality driving neocons: they're
worried that Hagel is a dissident when it comes to the bipartisan DC
orthodoxy mandating lockstep, unquestioning support for the militarism and
aggression of the Israeli government. There will be ample debate on these
questions coming soon (I discussed those issues a couple of weeks ago on
Chris Hayes' show<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/22/hagel-zero-dark-thirty-msnbc>
).

But for other progressives, concerns over Hagel have nothing to do with
Israel. They have instead expressed two unrelated objections: (1) back in
1998 - 15 years ago - Hagel voted against James Hormel as Ambassador to
Luxembourg on the ground that Hormel, as Hagel put it, was "openly,
aggressively gay" (for that concern, see Barney
Frank<http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/smea.html>,
who completely reversed<http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/barney-frank-on-chuck-hagel-i-think-hed-be-very-good.html>
himself
on Hagel from two weeks ago, and Rachel
Maddow<http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/maddow-neocon-applause.html>);
and (2) Hagel is a Republican, and Obama should nominate a Democrat in
order to show that Democrats are capable of running the Pentagon and
military policy (see Markos
Moultisas<https://twitter.com/markos/status/279332787847319554>
 and Daily Kos<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/04/1176350/-Chuck-Hagel-to-be-nominated-for-secretary-of-defense>
).

For the moment, let us concede that there is validity to both concerns. In
context, how significant are they?

When it comes to LGBT equality, 1998 is a different universe. Virtually no
prominent Democrats (let alone Republicans) supported marriage equality
back then, or even equal rights for LGBT citizens. In fact, Hagel's comment
came only two years after the overwhelming majority of Democratic Senatorsvoted
in favor of the truly odious and discriminatory Defense of Marriage
Act<http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/doma/1996/senate.vote.rollcall-09.10.96>
-
including Joe Biden, Patty Murray, Pat Leahy and Paul Wellstone - which was
then signed into law by Bill Clinton. That law not only defined marriage as
between a man and a woman, but barred the federal government from issuing
any spousal benefits - immigration, tax, death benefits - to same-sex
couples. If you're going to judge politicians by how they felt about LGBT
issues 15 years ago, be prepared to scorn almost every national Democratic
Party hero you have as a bigot.

In fact, back in 2008 - only four years ago - here's what Barack Obama,
speaking on CNN in front of Rev. Rick Warren's Christian group, had to
say<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-anderson/is-god-still-in-the-mix-mr-president_b_1636996.html>when
Warren asked him why he opposes same-sex marriage:

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for
me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union.*God is in the mix*."

The very idea that secular law should deny equal rights to LGBT citizens
because Obama's religion teaches that God frowns upon homosexuality is both
offensive and warped. Yet almost nobody (including me) entertained the idea
that Obama's candidacy should be opposed due to his overt, toxic advocacy
of anti-gay discrimination. And that was only four years ago, not fifteen.

So yes: like virtually every prominent politician in both parties, Chuck
Hagel had primitive and ugly views on gay issues back in 1998. But
shouldn't the question be: does he still hold these views or, like huge
numbers of Americans, have his viewed evolved since then? Hagel has
apologized for what he said, an apology which Hormel accepted, graciously
noting<http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hormel-uses-facebook-accept-hagels-apology221212>:
"I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized
for anything . . . .Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public
attitudes have shifted--perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the
times, too." Moreover, Hagel last week also
vowed<http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/exclusive-chuck-hagel-apologizes-for-gay-slur-85413.html>
that
he is "fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military
families."

The openly gay foreign policy insider, Steve Clemons, has known Hagel for
years, and two weeks ago wrote in the
Atlantic<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-chuck-hagel-i-know-a-staunch-defender-of-gay-rights/266589/>
that
"Chuck Hagel is pro-gay, pro-LGBT, pro-ending 'don't ask, don't tell.'"
Beyond his policy views, Clemons recounted personal incident after personal
incident that completely negates the accusation that Hagel now harbors
bigotry toward gay people.

Given how progressives assess other politicians, why should Hagel not be
forgiven or at least be given the benefit of the doubt? Look at what
Democrats are willing to forgive and forget. They swoon for Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton, who in 2002 voted to authorize George Bush's attack on
Iraq, surely a far worse offense than Hagel's ugly comments about Hormel.
They overlook Biden's obnoxious 2006 comments about
Indian-Americans<http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-1785303.html> and
Obama'spatronizing and sexist use of
"sweetie"<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Juy9NwI8_i0>
to
dismiss a female reporter in 2008. They adore the top Democrat in the
Senate, Harry Reid, who opposes a woman's right to choose. They even
forgave long-time Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd for his past membership in
the Ku Klux Klan. Where does Hagel's 1998 comment rank with those bad acts?

Then there's the issue of Hagel's party affiliation. The perception that
Republicans are more trustworthy than Democrats on military issues - and
that Democratic presidents thus had to rely on Republicans to run the
Pentagon - was indeed both pervasive and baseless. But that, too, has
changed: the outgoing Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, is as loyal and
partisan a Democrat as it gets, and nobody objected to his selection.

But much more importantly: when it comes to issues such as war, militarism,
defense spending and Middle East policy, isn't *substance* much more
significant than whether someone has an "R" or "D" after their name? As
Obama himself proves - and as Biden and Clinton before him proved - the
fact that someone has a "D" after their name is hardly a guarantor that
they will oppose policies of aggression and militarism. Indeed, as Clemons
said Friday night on MSNBC <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50369245>,
most Democrats in the Pentagon are so afraid of being cast as "soft on
defense" that they hug policies of militarism far more eagerly and
unquestioningly than Chuck Hagel ever would. Is partisan identity so
all-consuming that it completely trumps substance, so that a hawkish
Democrat is preferable to a war-skeptic Republican?

There's a reason Hagel's nomination has become so intensely controversial
and such a vicious target for war-cheering neocons such as Bill
Kristol<http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Anti_Semitism>
 andthe Washington Post Editorial
Board<http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/the-neocons-rally-against-hagel.html>.
It's because Hagel is one of the very, very few prominent national
politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and
dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy. What
plausible Democratic candidate for this job has been willing publicly to
point out that the US and Israel are separate countries and American
interests should trump Israeli interests when they conflict, or to advocate
for direct negotiations with Hamas, or to candidly point out that America's
Middle East wars are fought for
oil<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/six-years-ago-chuck-hagel-told-truth-about-iraq>,
or to condemn the power of the pro-Israel lobby within both parties, or to
harshly point out the stupidity of attacking Iran rather than cowardly
mouth the "all-options-on-the-table" platitude?

Anyone on the left who suggested in the run-up to the 2012 election that
principled opposition to Obama's policies meant they would not vote for his
re-election was instantly attacked as irrational. One cannot simply focus
on Obama's flaws, they were instructed, but rather must consider the
plausible alternatives. Fine: let's apply this standard to the Hagel
nomination.

All of the Democratic alternatives to Hagel who have been seriously
mentioned are nothing more than standard foreign policy technocrats, fully
on-board with the DC consensus regarding war, militarism, Israel, Iran, and
the Middle East. That's why Kristol, the Washington Post and other neocons
were urging Obama to select them rather than Hagel: because those neocons
know that, unlike Hagel, these Democratic technocrats pose no challenge
whatsoever to their agenda of sustaining destructive US policy in the
Middle East and commitment to endless war.

Do progressives even pretend any longer to care about any of these issues:
about war, militarism, lockstep support for Israel, belligerence toward
Iran, a refusal to negotiate with America's "enemies"? Even if you disagree
with my views on whether Hagel's record on gays and his partisan
affiliation are problematic, shouldn't you have to weigh those concerns
against the issues that the Pentagon principally affects: the record of
Hagel - as opposed to Michele Flournoy, Ashton Carter, or the other
plausible nominees - on issues of war. foreign policy and militarism?

Denial of LGBT equality under the law is probably the political issue that
has the single greatest negative impact on my
life<http://www.salon.com/2010/10/26/doma_2/>.
Whether someone harbors anti-gay views matters to me greatly. But it's far
from the only issue I care about. I also care about putting a stop to
America's posture of endless war and militarism, and ceasing our
antagonizing of the entire Muslim world (and large parts of the rest of the
world) through lockstep support for indefensible Israeli policies of
aggression and annexation, and avoiding a military attack on Iran, and
significantly cutting military spending, and attempting a negotiated peace
with America's varied "enemies".

When it comes to deciding who should run the Defense Department, how can it
be justified simply to ignore all of that - literally ignore it - in favor
of fixation on a comment from Hagel 15 years ago or which partisan letter
follows his name? Here we have one of the only opportunities in years to
have a (relative) war skeptic and mild dissident on Israel and MidEast
policy running the Pentagon - one who is uniquely situated and brave enough
to voice those critiques given his status as combat hero - and liberals are
really going to devote themselves to helping neocons destroy that nominee
and, along with him, destroy this rare and otherwise unavailable
opportunity?

The benefits of a Hagel nomination shouldn't be overstated. As I said last
week, I agree with
those<http://charliedavis.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/a-defense-secretary-of-their-own.html>
 who doubt<http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/9233/why-chuck-hagel-is-irrelevant>
that
Hagel will have any real impact on restraining Obama's aggressive and
imperialistic foreign policies.

Moreover, despite the above-reference differences, Hagel in
general<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/daniel-larison/>
 issquarely within the DC foreign policy consensus on most
issues<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/what-the-hagel-nomination-would-mean-and-what-it-wouldnt/>
(Obama
would never nominate someone who isn't). It's quite likely that in his
confirmation process, he'll conform as much as possible to DC orthodoxies
in order to ensure confirmation. Democratic Party advocates will defend him
on the cowardly ground that he affirms those
orthodoxies<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/19/1357931/chuck-hagel-pro-israel/>,
not on the ground that it is permissible let alone desirable to question
them. It seems likely that Obama wants Hagel not due to Iran or Hamas but
primarily because, as a combat veteran, he will be helpful in trying to
facilitate a withdrawal from Afghanistan over strong military and hawkish
objections. And there's only so much influence a single Cabinet member can
have on administration policy.

But at the very least, Hagel's confirmation will be a much-needed
declaration that some mild dissent on foreign policy orthodoxies and Israel
is permitted. It will shatter AIPAC's veto power and dilute the perception
of the so-called "pro-Israel community's" unchallengeable power. It will
ensure that there is at leastsome diversity of
viewpoints<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cnn-hagel-has-been-against-sanctions-iran-has-been-talking-hamas_693733.html>
when
it comes to debating endless war, belligerence v. negotiations, and MidEast
policy. It will highlight the typically-suppressed differences within the
GOP and the country about America's war posture. In sum, as Matt Duss very
persuasively detailed in the American
Prospect<http://prospect.org/article/what-attacks-hagel-tell-us>,
Hagel's confirmation would bring some incremental though potentially
substantial benefits.

Given the steadfast and usually unquestioning support most liberals have
given this Democratic President as he's pursued policies of aggression and
militarism, they should refrain from opposing one of the few prominent
dissidents on these matters absent some very compelling reasons. So far,
nothing remotely compelling has been offered. If this nomination actually
happens, this will be one of Obama's best appointments and boldest steps of
his presidency. It would be ironic indeed, and more than a bit unfortunate,
if liberals decide to make this nomination one of the very few times they
are willing to oppose their party's leader.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130105/008a5fb1/attachment-0001.html>