Chuck Hagel's Future: All Options on the Table
Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Jack Reed (D-RI) just acquitted themselves very well on Tim Russert's Meet the Press.
Hagel made an articulate, compelling call for a new American comprehensive strategy in the Middle East that includes robust diplomacy, coordination with moderate Sunni regimes in the Middle East and new forms of economic engagement.
Hagel said that the White House keeps focusing on a "military approach" to Iraq. But he stated quite firmly, "the US military will not determine the future of Iraq."
Reed was impressive too -- until he began to focus on his and Hagel's early call for increasing the overall size of the US army. He probably meant "military forces in total" rather than just the "army". Hagel said nothing about this, but Reid made it sound like the key to solving the problem of an over-extended military apparatus is just making it larger.
I think -- and I believe that Hagel believes at some level -- that the first step in solving the "military over-reach" problem is getting better management and figuring out why despite more dollars and resources being thrown at the Pentagon that perceived "security deliverables" are declining.
Hagel said that he would make a statement about his intentions to run for the presidency or not in a few weeks. He reminded listeners that despite Vice President Cheney's recent criticism of Hagel that Congressionaly Quarterly found in a recent survey of 30 key votes that Hagel votes with the Bush administration more than any other U.S. Senator.
Hagel is a classic conservative -- but apparently not the kind of Republican that Dick Cheney likes.
Cheney recently stated:
Let's say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved."
This opposition by Cheney is exactly what makes Hagel such an interesting proposition in a Republican primary presidential race. He might take the Republican party to a "sensible conservatism." That could be healthy for the Republican Party, for both parties actually -- and for the nation as a whole.
Hagel says he has not made up his mind on running. Some indicators though are bubbling forth, and this writer has been privy to some informed gossip.
First, Hagel has a book deal underway to get his thoughts on America's future out during the 2008 primary season.
Second, Hagel has told a number of people close to him that if he does run for the presidency, that he won't keep his Senate seat. He reportedly does not want to be in John Kerry's position. That makes sense to me.
There have been some rumors -- strong rumors -- that Hagel was on the verge of quitting the Senate and not running for the presidency. That seems to be curbed somewhat -- both after a call by many in the grassroots asking that Hagel not quit the Senate and also because he has seen the value and felt national support for standing strong in his opposition to the Iraq troop surge.
But the biggest thing that has happened is that Hagel had decided not to run previously because he thought that he and John McCain occupied the same political space. That is no longer true -- and his profile is rather unique on the Republican side. His Sandhills PAC is also clearly picking up steam and is reaching out.
My hunch is that Hagel will announce an exploratory committee in a few weeks. Could be wrong -- I don't know anything from the deep inside about what Hagel is really likely to do. But I think he will announce this exploratory committee step in such a way that he is not making a full-fledged commitment to running.
Others tell me that Hagel is waiting for the American public to sour on those first out of the gate. He feels that it would be a mistake to be chasing favor this quickly in a presidential race, when there is all sorts of opportunity for frontrunners to stumble and go stale.
One downside of this strategy is that it reinforces in the minds of some that Hagel is not serious or does not at the end of the day have the appetite for the kinds of things he'd have to do to to get moved into the White House. One top tier national security voice of Republican ilk told me the other day that he wishes "Hagel would just make up his mind." This former government icon said "I like Chuck Hagel, a lot. I am not sure that Chuck Hagel really wants it bad enough and that he will do what it takes to win. But if he does and he's solid and committed to that decision, it would be healthy for the country."
Another top tier national security voice -- of Democratic ilk -- wrote this to me recently regarding a meeting with Senator Hagel that he knew I would be attending:
. . .Give my best to Chuck -- I hope he runs. . . You can tell him that.
Hagel is clearly cautious and is taking his time to make up his mind on this important investment of time and political capital. Mitt Romney may be a big challenge to him, but the two have very different takes on the war and on what it takes to get America's national security portfolio back in shape.
Frankly, I think his entry into the race could be helpful as far as serious discussions of America's foreign policy missteps -- as I believe that his national security and foreign policy views are exactly what any successful Republican or Democrat candidate should be expressing. No one on the Democratic side has really stolen his brand of sensible, enlightened realism in foreign policy.
That gives Hagel a chance to continue to own the space he is in. But when he enters, watch quite a few of the Dems and Republicans try to begin mimicking him. Nothing wrong in that.
-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
By over-reach, are you referring to ill-defined & growing missions, or stretching the force over too many operations? This is just a clarification, "strategic overreach" is a term of art in the military literature, referring variously to "mission creep" and also not knowing what constitutes victory.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 18, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that Democrats can say nice things about Republicans, but Republicans can't say nice things about Democrats? I have never seen an article like this written from someone on the other side -- not one. Even when they "praise" the sort-of-Democrat Lieberman, it's with the sole purpose of using him to attack other Democrats.
February 18, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
IT seems to me Murtha has proposed a serious plan that nicely sidesteps the "cut the funding" argument. Let's see Hagel propose something substantive that undercuts the talking point demogoguery of his own party, because as much as I know the meme of "both parties are to blame" is sacrosanct to the Broder-Clemons party, Iraq is the creation of George W Bush, and every serious effort to ameliorate it is blocked by Bush's allies in the Senate (and the MSM, not by any means limited to FoxNewS) and will continue to be blocked by them.
IF you want me to buy into the Hagel as saviour line, you're going to have to point to something more bold and more substantive than a non-binding resolutoin and a protest vote from fellow rubber stamper Olly Snowe.
February 18, 2007 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel's recent flip-flop on the anti-surge resolution in the Senate doesn't look good, he talks a good game but is it just politics or is he a true believer. His voting record shows that he's not a rebel on any issues except Bush's war, so he's a one issue candidate.
I hope Hagel does decide to run, he'd be a counter to McCain and Romney and his senate seat would become a wide open race in 2008. Well, as wide open as a Senate race can be in Nebraska. I salute him for his opposition to the war and I hope that political expediency during the presidential race doesn't cause him to morph into a backer of the war.
February 18, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never liked McCain because I knew he was a hard right conservative, regardless of how the MSM fawned over him and tried to make him a "maverick". For the same reason, I don't like Hagel. Hagel is being commended for seeing IRAQ for what it is, a disaster, but as he said, on 30 key votes he sided with Bush.
February 18, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: "I hope Hagel does decide to run, he'd be a counter to McCain and Romney and his senate seat would become a wide open race in 2008."
Didn't Lieberman run for Senate at the same time he ran as VP? I may be wrong, but I remember it that way. What worked for one republican may very well work for another republican, eh?
Jan Knaus
February 18, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's Iraq war has cost somewhere around $700 billion so far. Those dollars were not used as fuel to heat the Pentagon, nor were they taken to Iraq to use as bombs and bullets. They were paid to U.S. contractors and corporations. So, the business community has benefited by a $700 billion cash infusion as a direct result of Bush's war.
This isn't off subject at all. The MSM, being owned by a few large U.S. corporations is certain to be pleased by the cash cow Bush plopped down in their midst. That isn't exactly an incentive to them to oppose the continuation of the war.
That also makes me highly suspicious of Hagel's stand against Bush's war. It is gathering him a lot of support for a run for the Presidency, and it isn't costing the Republicans anything, nor does it have any effect on keeping the cash cow alive. If there ever is a really close vote that might rein in the Bush war and Hagel then votes for it, I will finally be convinced.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 18, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or if, as someone here suggested, he presents some kind of meaningful bill with meaningful (ie, filibuster-busting) GOP support before he takes is to Harry Reid.
Even if Bush vetoes this hypothetical bill/resolution, as Lugar assures he will w/r/t Biden's proposed re-write of the Iraq AUMF (a good idea, IMHO), I would like to see Bush forced to take that clear a position against the wishes of a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate.
February 18, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Clemons, I have to take exception with this statement you make regarding Senator Jack Reed:
"Reed was impressive too -- until he began to focus on his and Hagel's early call for increasing the overall size of the US army. He probably meant "military forces in total" rather than just the "army". Hagel said nothing about this, but Reid made it sound like the key to solving the problem of an over-extended military apparatus is just making it larger."
I remember what you refer to as an "early call" it was just as General Shinseki had taken a stand on, the fact that the Bush administration, through Donald Rumsfeld was attempting to micro-manage the war, by under cutting the army's need for adequate troop strength, which was very dangerous and contributed to the strain on our young men and women serving in what was an extremely volatile situation.
The "increasing the overall size of the US army" and he did mean "army" was in actuality a call for funding to increase the army by 10,000 troops. The Bush administrations funding demands went 77% to sources other than the military.. y'know your friendly military industrial complex profiteer for the most part. Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten that, or the fact that Russert, who is known to be a shill for the neo-con interests, who once he had taken his place as the head of NBC news, was using his position and power to help Bush's push into the war with Iraq???? Perhaps you've gotten the warrm fuzzies for him because of his having to testify at the Scooter Libby trial and that you believe that he's gotten religion because of that?
Reed, was referring to the fact that Bush is attempting to distract from his plan to send more than 21,000 more troops into Bagdad to conduct dangerous door to door searches that our generals have stated is not something they should be doing, by harking back to when Senators Hagel and Reed tried to get 10,000 more troops sent, to accuse the current effort as being a non-issue. Reed's comments were apropo, as despite the fact that Russert was lobbing softballs to Hagel, he was playing his old partisan tricks by attempting to marginalize Reed and the democrats position on the subject. Back in '02 Reed and Hagel responded to the requests by the generals that the Bush administration was placing the troops in greater peril by not sending in enough troops to take care of the job... the blogs were all up in arms about Rummy's micro-managing the war.. how can you claim to not remember that. That's not the same thing as what you inferred, that Reed was confusing the situation. Here's the statement you misinterpreted from the transcipt of the interview:
SEN. REED: Well, I don’t think it’s a concern that it’s a radioactive issue, but the president is inviting a debate and citing polls. There’s no American, and I don’t think there’s any senator, that’s consciously going to take away equipment, training dollars for American personnel. And again, this is the administration that went into this operation without a good plan for an occupation, went in without sufficient armored humvees, without body armor for troops, without training in counterinsurgency operations, despite the conventional success of that march into Baghdad. This is an administration that has persistently overstressed the Army. Chuck and I, in 2003, made the first proposal to increase the size of the Army. It’s only within several months that the president has embraced the idea of a larger Army. So their attention to the needs of the military, I think could be faulted significantly. And now they want to use the Army and the funding as a sort of political crutch. here's the url for the page of the transcript I took the exact quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168627/page/5/
In case you're uninformed on my state senator, Jack Reed here's a bit about him. He was born into a working class family in Cranston, RI, his dad was a janitor. After graduating from West Point and receiving an active duty commission in the United States Army, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University where he received a Masters of Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.
He is not only is experienced and well informed about military issues, he cares passionately about our troops. He's not a hawk either. He also has an outstanding record on civil rights, and social justice issues, on worker's rights, the enviroment, women's issues.. all across the board. His office helped me fight for my husband, helped him get the medicare coverage he needed when he was fired when his employer found out he needed an organ transplant. He is an outstanding human being and member of the senate. We are lucky to have someone like him fighting for us.
What I'd like to know, were your comments based on a lacking in paying attention to what was said, or perhaps the same lacking of researching what you report on (like the MSM) or was it some axe you felt the need to grind perhaps?
February 18, 2007 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right he could probably run for both offices unless there is some quirk in Nebraska law prohibiting it. It's also possible that he could jump into and out of the presidential contest so fast that his re-election campaign would never feel the slightest jolt.
February 18, 2007 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Thou shalt bloweth hot air behind thine Democrat's ear while givething them a good screwing"
~OGD~
February 19, 2007 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mary from RI -- I know and have met Senator Reed on several occasions and have sat in with him on several discussions of Democratic approaches to national security and foreign policy issues, but thanks for the extra information on his background.
I think you overreach in your reaction to my piece. The fact that you think I have an axe to grind against him when I largely complimented him, with the exception of throwing more resources at the Pentagon, may say something more about your views of any criticism at all. My piece was hardly about Reed -- it was about Hagel.
But to make clear my views -- I am totally opposed to increasing the size of the Pentagon on any long-term basis without first having a national discussion about why the military has been broken the way it has been. What is it with our current national security objectives that seems to be out of line with our current Pentagon struture?
Until those questions are answered, then Reed's and Hagel's proposal -- and a proposal that was floated by Hillary as well, as well as a famous PNAC Letter that got lots of Dems to sign on, is in my view very bad policy.
If that is what you and I disagree over, then we disagree.
best,
Steve Clemons
February 19, 2007 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a partial answer to
see the unclassified version of the Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States. In past administrations, the declassified version of national strategy given to senior officials differs, in various degrees, from the public position.
This document speaks not just of defense, but, among other things, "We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world" and "The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty—so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom."
Does "New Millenium Challenge Account" sound suspiciously like part of the "Project for the New American Century"? That's an aside; let me speak to the way strategy and military capability have been defined in the past. Compared to the detailed language of past internal statements, the public statement here seems to have no limit on intervention, while internal ones of the past definitely do. In fairness, the Administration strategy does not assume all objectives will be achieved by military means.
Previous classified documents have variously stated, as a capability to fight a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe (no longer likely), and fight some number of "Major Regional Conflicts (MRC)". MRCs would be such things as the major combat phases of the two operations against Iraq, perhaps an outbreak of fighting between the Koreas, etc.
Strategy documents have variously said the capability to fight MRCs might be 2 full MRCs, or 1.5 MRCs. The latter means having enough force to take the offensive in one and hold a defensive position in the second, and then shift forces to win the second after the first has been one. Typically, there is also a mention of a number of small, often Special Operations, training and operational support missions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 19, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
PNAC Letter(s)
Unfortunately the list is not up-to-date, but there are more recent PNAC letters which have Democratic *cough* paw prints on them.
Hillary's National Security 'think-tank' maybe?
Yikes!
February 19, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that, according to Congressional Quarterly, Chuck Hagel votes WITH President Bush more often than any other Senator is supposed to...what?
1. Make me like him?
2. Make me think he's a maverick?
The readers of TPMCafe are a fairly sophisticated lot. They are not single issue voters, by any stretch. What you are doing, Steve, is not even damning him by faint praise...you are just damning him.
February 19, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who TELLS people what to think and do, Steve is just giving information. Facts. Hagel votes consistently with Bush. He would most likely appoint Supreme Court Justices that would be consistent with Bush's choices. He is smart, and has said alot of very intelligent things lately.
Put all that into the mix, and decide what you think of Hagel. Telling the truth about someone is damning them only if they have made a bunch of damnable decisions.
Jan Knaus
February 19, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to ask why suddenly Hagel is presented to a liberal constituency as being anything worth discussing.. ? No progressive would credit his sudden realignment on Bush's Iraq war as a sign that he is even an option.. Hagel is not even a lukewarm moderate. It's known that he was a hawk and has a voting record that identifies him as right wing conservative.. whether it's on the environment, choice, economical issues, workers rights.. across the board, he is one of Bush's ideological jackboots.
And there's this.. (read below) Hagel's ties to the blackbox voting industry, his refusal to disclose the ties, and his subsequent large investments in the same, and the strange fact that his surprise first election came as a result of the same blackbox voting machines in his state (the votes of a large number of African American voters who were democrats were attributed to having voted for him, though there was no sign of their having done so)
it kind of gives me pause that one of Arianna HuffPo's columnist is hawking Chuck Hagel, the same way she hawked McCain after she claimed to have seen the light and became a progressive... lol, I still remember the dupes who had shown up for her Shadow Convention in a state of shock when she and McCain endorsed Bush onstage.
Failure to disclose involvement with electronic voting firm
For the first ten weeks of 1996, Hagel served as chairman of American Information Systems (AIS), a voting machine company which later changed its name to ES&S. He also had holdings in the firm's parent group, McCarthy Group Inc., worth between $1 and $5 million. [11] In November 1996, Hagel was elected to the Senate, the first Republican elected from Nebraska since 1974. He came from behind twice during his run (according to polls), first against well known Republican Attorney General Don Stenberg in the primary, and then against popular Democratic Gov. (and eventual senator) Ben Nelson. In fact, one Nebraska newspaper described his victory as a “stunning upset.” [12] In January 1997, the Washington Post called Hagel's victory, "the major Republican upset in the November election." [13] According to Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting.org, a group aimed at “consumer protection for elections,” Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely African-American communities that had never before voted Republican. AIS was responsible for counting approximately 80% of the votes in the election. [14] [15] [16]
In a disclosure form filed in 1996, Hagel did not report that he was chairman of AIS during 1996 or go into detail regarding the company’s underlying assets. Rather, he cited his holdings as an “excepted investment fund,” which is exempt from detailed disclosure rules. [17] [18] [19]
On May 23, 1997, Victor Baird, then serving as director of the Senate Ethics Committee, sent a letter to Hagel requesting “additional, clarifying information” for the personal financial disclosure report Hagel filed. In 2002, the issue surfaced again as Charlie Matulka, Hagel’s opponent for reelection, wrote to Baird requesting an investigation into Hagel’s ownership in and nondisclosure of ES&S (the information remained undisclosed as of 2002). Baird replied that Matulka's complaint lacked merit and dismissed the matter. [20] [21] [22]
Under the ethics panel’s regulations at the time, an “excepted investment fund” was one that was “publicly traded (or available) or widely diversified.” The committee had defined a “publicly available” stock or investment as one that could be purchased on a public market or for which information was publicly available. This type of information, some contended, would typically be found in reference outlets such as Moody’s Financial Services Information, Standard & Poor’s register, or Barron’s The Dow Jones and Financial Weekly. A 2003 search of all three by The Hill, however, revealed no references to McCarthy. In addition, a comprehensive report ordered by The Hill from Dun & Bradstreet, a leading financial information firm, indicated that McCarthy's financial information was not publicly available. Michael McCarthy, chairman of the McCarthy Group and Hagel’s campaign treasurer, acknowledged that the company was not publicly traded or widely diversified, but claimed that it was publicly available nonetheless. [23] [24] [25]
On January 25th and 27th of 2003, Baird met with Hagel's office. Later on the 27th, he abruptly resigned his post, ending a sixteen year stint with the committee. Later that day, Baird’s replacement, Robert Walker, changed the committee's definition of “excepted investment fund.” Under the revised definition, the committee would have the ability to decide, based on the specific facts of each case, whether an investment had been made in a publicly available firm. Many argued that the new definition made it virtually impossible to determine whether Hagel, or any other legislator, must report investments in non-traded private companies. [26] [27] [28]
Soon after the change, Lou Ann Linehan, Hagel’s chief of staff, denied that Hagel had ever failed to meet the Senate Ethics Committee’s reporting requirements in his annual financial disclosure forms. She claimed that she was sure that at least one investment advisor and broker confirmed that McCarthy Group Inc. was publicly available. She was unable, however, to offer the name of any investment broker or advisor who consulted with Hagel or his staff on the matter. [29] [30] [31]
You can see the article in it's entirety with source links here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chuck_Hagel
February 20, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink