Steve Clemons

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was none too pleased when a Democratic Senate colleague, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, blocked his efforts to move a notch forward on gun control by expanding requirements for background checks.

But now the two of them are leading an effort in the Senate to put forward what Manchin calls a "sensible alternative" to the White House-drafted Syria resolution. Manchin and Heitkamp have argued that a punishing blow against Syria's Assad regime, which stands accused of deploying chemical weapons against its own citizens, could escalate in unexpected ways or could draw the U.S. directly into Syria's civil war. They argue that the nation deserves to know how this action fits into the strategic objectives of the United States -- and what the trade-offs are against other priorities.

The Manchin-Heitkamp resolution calls for two primary things. First, it gives the administration 45 days to secure from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a commitment to join those nations who have signed and agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention. If Assad fails to comply, then the Senate gives full authorization to the president to use whatever means possible to respond to the regime's apparent August 21 use of chemical weapons.

In a fascinating and potentially consequential announcement today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that his country will push Assad to relinquish all chemical weapons.

Secondly, the draft resolution calls for the White House in the next 45 days to fully articulate its Syria strategy to the Senate. Manchin and Heitkamp call for detail on how the end game in Syria's civil war does not hand over the nation to the Islamic extremist wing of the opposition and how the U.S. will respond to and deal with various escalation scenarios -- not just with Syria but also with its strategic partners, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and others. The resolution offers the White House a classified information channel, as well, to articulate these goals and scenarios.

Given that President Obama said that he could strike Syria in "a day, a week, a month," waiting 45 days to try and secure a major leap by Syria from being a holder and deployer of chemical weapons to one that joins the international community in opposition to them makes smart, strategic sense.

Furthermore, the element of surprise is gone in responding to Assad on his regime's use of chemical weapons. Attacking him would have made sense, even in a limited way, if designed to change his strategic calculus on working through some form of deal with elements of the Syrian opposition. Today, the delays are emboldening Assad. Waiting another 45 days won't degrade the situation further, but may allow an opportunity for some net positive to emerge.

The White House has refused to consider Manchin's proposal and has resisted considering alternatives, according to a source close to the administration's efforts to secure congressional support on Syria. But according to Senate sources, Manchin and Heitkamp's efforts are giving on-the-fence senators an alternative that they feel provides the possibility of success without mindlessly marching off to war.

Here is the draft resolution, titled the "Chemical Weapons Control and Accountability Resolution."

Chemical Weapons Control and Accountability Resolution of 2013 9 6 2013

I have been greatly affected by sad news from Oklahoma today, another case of a victim of gun violence that deserves as much attention and public concern as the more grisly mass slayings we have heard so much about and which still have not produced progress on gun control.

In the latest incident, Australian student Christopher Lane was killed while visiting his girlfriend in Duncan, Oklahoma. The young college baseball player, studying in the United States at East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma, was allegedly shot and killed by three juveniles, one of whom confessed to the police saying,  "We were bored and didn't have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody."

My friend and former head of the Obama White House's Office of Personnel and Management John Berry was just sworn in as the new U.S. Ambassador to Australia, and I can't imagine a more difficult task than meeting with the parents and family of Christopher Lane and apologizing for the idiocy and delinquency of these young thugs. (The new Ambassador Berry should make it a priority to meet these parents.) 

I also happen to love Oklahoma and identify Bartlesville, Oklahoma, as my family home.  Bartlesville is in a different quarter of the state than Ada and Duncan -- but still there are too many disengaged youth and too many politicians there who support rampant gun proliferation over any other state priorities. This kind of murder in Oklahoma is not rare, and until the state moves more decidedly toward trying to prioritize building "healthy communities" that shun violence and provide opportunities for youth, the state deserves to be knocked down a few notches in terms of its status as a haven for new job-creating investments. There are a lot of Australian firms in the strategic energy arena -- and it wouldn't surprise me if firms considering Oklahoma decided to move elsewhere.

Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator from West Virginia, continues to work hard behind the scenes in delivering on a sensible step forward on gun control. He's a gun owner big time -- loves to hunt and believes in protecting his family -- and he's been talking to Republicans offline to try and get them to step forward, as they should, on sensible background checks (though Manchin and Senator Pat Toomey's bill does not establish a national register for these checks).

I really like Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn on a number of fronts. He's hard core conservative but he's got a brain and is not an ideologue. I respect him. I have more trouble with his U.S. Senate colleague and fellow Oklahoman Jim Inhofe, who managed to ask during Defense Secretary confirmation hearings whether Senator Chuck Hagel was an agent of Iranian interests. But that aside, these are generally smart, mostly principled political leaders.

They should be stepping forward after this sad murder of a promising, young student who had chosen their state to invest his time and aspirations in and get behind the Manchin-Toomey effort.

Last week, I was in Bartlesville and Tulsa, Oklahoma. I saw signs everywhere for a coming major gun show and was reminded by one of Tom Coburn's friends that "his best friend in Oklahoma" owns those gun shows and is rabidly opposed to any form of gun constraints, even anything as innocuous and as sensible as background checks.

Tom Coburn should step up. He has the capacity to do so. This murder of a young man in Oklahoma deserves his response. Other teens in the state who have easy access to guns should learn from Coburn and hopefully Inhofe that this incident harms them, harms the state, and harms America in the eyes of not only Australians but many others around the world.

Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman confesses in the New York Times on Friday that he finds that in the realm of international affairs he finds the arguments from both "human rights and democracy advocates" as well as "hard-boiled foreign policy realists" frustrating and difficult to sort through. He says that in both cases, "smart people with total conviction" are putting forward compelling arguments. In the end, he considers whether the problem is that the "positions appeal to different parts of the body, heart vs. head."

Let me get my own sentiments out of the way first. I like Jonathan Tepperman and feel that Foreign Affairs is lucky to have someone as editorially and intellectually creative as he is. That said (here comes the hard-boiled realism), he makes the mistake that many human rights-tilting foreign policy analysts today who have grown too distant from the Cold War make: he suggests realism is not about the heart as well as the head. 

The challenge, from my perspective, is how to smarten up human rights advocates and interventionists who tend not to think about the head but rather react rashly and impulsively without thinking through the costs and benefits. Ted Koppel gives this some historical flourish in his excellent Wall Street Journal piece this week, "America's Chronic Overreaction to Terrorism."

As I have written previously, the late Richard Holbrooke was a significant exception to the playbook-absent liberal interventionists who dominate that faction of the foreign policy establishment. Holbrooke thought in terms of costs and benefits and was willing to negotiate with some of the world's most abhorrent, immoral characters if it moved American interests forward and served to promote global justice.

Although my friends at the realist-home base, The Center for the National Interest (previously the Nixon Center), tend to cringe when I refer to Holbrooke as a successful Nixonian-like foreign policy progressive, the fact is that his example shows that he was one of the few human rights advocates on the scene who played to both head and heart. He was a realistic human rights advocate who ruthlessly focused on results and achieved them, and the world was better for it. 

Realists, in contrast, want to square away national interests first and foremost and make sure that America's stock of power is not eroded by crusades and endeavors that distract from core interests. That said, they believe America serves a great global good in shaping the international system in ways that serve both its own interests and those of its liberal, mostly (but not always) democratic allies -- and that when America has the stock of power on hand to do so, it can help mitigate great humanitarian crises around the world in a way that both serves others and keeps American power intact and growing.

Realists don't believe, however, that even a superpower (less super than decades ago) like the United States can easily influence the deep internal dynamics and behavior of other countries -- nor should the U.S. attempt to do so. They feel that this kind of intervention inside other nations can just as easily generate blowback, or a perception of either bullying or impotency about the U.S., for objectives that were never really in reach anyway or worth the gamble.

In other words, the starting error that many human rights and liberal interventionist analysts make is that their aspirations for foreign policy were never attainable, or to say it less charitably, not solvent.

For example, Tepperman opens his essay suggesting that Obama's foreign policy weakness is responsible for all sorts of "bads" in the domestic scenes of other countries. He writes:

In just the last few weeks, the Russian government has used a show trial to silence a prominent activist, Egypt's junta has massacred protesters, Turkey has cracked down on peaceful dissent, and the rulers of Cambodia and Zimbabwe have stolen elections -- again.

In each case, the Obama administration has done little more than mutter objections under its breath.

Bad stuff has been happening inside other countries for a very long time -- even when U.S. power was its zenith after World War II and during the toughest spots during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Elections were stolen then. Genocides happened. Tyrants manhandled their citizens. Show trials occurred not only in the USSR, but also in places like Cuba, Argentina, Chile, and more.

Tepperman is mistaken, I think, to suggest that any of these cases reflects a weak foreign policy posture of the United States in general, and of the Obama administration during this period in time. 

Had he instead suggested that the inability of President Obama to get Germany's Angela Merkel to do what he wanted at the 2009 London G-20 Summit; or the difficulty the administration has in getting the U.S.-military dependent Japan to ratchet down its nationalistic, China-antagonizing rhetoric; or Obama's inability to get Israel's Netanyahu to stop building Middle-East-peace-wrecking settlements on Occupied Territories; or the president's inability to (as of yet) move or seduce Iran on to a normalization track that comes without nuclear weapons capacity; or that Saudi Arabia has shifted away from its general foreign affairs docility to more active engagement in the MENA region based on its calculation of U.S. weakness and strategic contraction; he would have been on target, as these are better measures of America's declining foreign policy effectiveness and strength.

Unfortunately, Tepperman sees American vacillation and lack of resolve as the reason for its ineffectiveness and perceived weakness -- even if he and I could agree on what measures reflect American power in the world.  

The realist answer to Tepperman's concern about declining U.S. power, and the right one in my view, is that America's national security decline is a function of (1) the mismanagement of its foreign policy resources and equities in the past -- i.e., too many "wars of choice" and the ascension of global policy crusades untethered by realistic cost and benefit calculations, (2) the relative rise in both economic and military power of other global stakeholders (America is still great and greater than the rest but not GREAT like in days of old), and (3) an absence of coherent strategy -- that could include waffling, duplicity, pugnaciousness, and earnest involvement in wrestling through foreign policy challenges. 

Tepperman suggests that articulating a clear strategy for the world and sticking to it would be better, but my sense is that America's stock of power had been badly depleted during the Bush/Cheney years and that Obama is working hard to increase that stock of power. That takes time -- and it means that waffling on some things, while moving on others, is the smarter play.

Tepperman's essay is wonderful as a teaching tool and offers opportunity for a serious debate about what drives successful or failed foreign policy outcomes. He references democracy strategists like Stanford's Larry Diamond who suggests a roster of economic and diplomatic sticks that the U.S. could use to influence the behavior of some small countries. But the bigger question that the cases mentioned raises is whether or not America's limited amount of diplomatic, military, and economic capital should be spent on compelling change in these small countries -- or whether that power should be directed at more serious challenges, like Iran for instance.

Tepperman also mentions Burma as a successful case in which diplomacy, seasoned with improved diplomatic and trade ties with the United States, moved the country's generals toward democratic liberalization. What is not mentioned is that an increasingly, regionally pugnacious China compelled Burma's leadership to hedge its bets. Vietnam did the same. Once I asked Henry Kissinger about the process of normalizing with China, and he said that the commander of a large Russian tank division amassed on the Sino-Soviet border really deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for clarifying matters to China. Myanmar, Vietnam, and the ASEAN region as a whole have had their U.S.-tilting interests clarified by a juggernaut they reside next to and worry about.

When President George W. Bush came into office, his then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice initiated a set of teach-ins with prominent national security and foreign policy intellectuals. One of these was Robert Kaplan, then an acclaimed "realist" traveling correspondent for The Atlantic and now Chief Geopolitical Anaylst at Stratfor, who told Bush in a private meeting that he would have to talk a lot about democracy and posture in favor of the expansion of democratic ideals -- but in truth he would have to do deals with thugs. 

Kaplan was right. America has to waffle on occasion because deeply intervening somewhere involves risks and can recklessly spend down the stock of American power so that the U.S. is less able to fix problems in the world tomorrow than it was prepared to yesterday. 

The problem with the costly wars America recently pursued is that they were not designed first to ensure that U.S. power prevailed in the long run -- they were mostly emotional, knee-jerk reactions to events triggered either by 9/11 or by a faction of a policy establishment types trying to settle old grievances. For the record, I supported the assault on Afghanistan and the Taliban -- but I did not support the Iraq War, nor the doubling down in Afghanistan after Obama came to office. These wars, rationalized by many in humanitarian terms, telegraphed military fatigue and overextension to nations like Russia, China, Iran, and more. They generated abuses at Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo that fed extremist terrorist recruitment in the region. U.S. military power was not leveraged in these missions; it was squandered and contained. 

One Chinese strategist once told me that China's grand strategy was trying to figure a way to keep America distracted by wars with small countries in the Middle East. While America was distracted, China had an easy time expanding its influence globally.

Humanitarian interventionism has its place -- but the deployment of U.S. forces should be infrequent. Overuse of the military has burst the bubble of America's superpower mystique, and mystique was always the secret sauce of America's global influence. There was a time when people around the world -- both in the developing and developed world -- perceived the U.S. to be without limit, without boundaries, always able to invent, or create, or compel change in the world like no other nation. In recent years, because of a self-created economic crisis, the collapse of its global moral prestige, and the sense of military overextension, America is perceived by the rest of the world as a limited, rather than a boundless, force in the world.

That is what well-meaning humanitarian and democracy advocates need to figure out. Their objectives are easier and more likely to be attained when America gets its stock of power restored. That means choices between challenges.That means delivering success on one or two major challenges and then translating that momentum into dealing with the next global conundrum. 

What Tepperman should really be calling for is not the abandonment of foreign policy waffling, or of duplicity in foreign affairs, where the U.S. says one thing and does another, but rather for a decided "strategy" as its North Star.

That North Star for me is increasing America's stock of power and capability so that it can shape the international system with other partners in beneficial ways well into the future -- including on great humanitarian goals. The head -- and then the heart. Power is a function of future expectations, just like the value of a business in the stock market, and America has to rewire itself so it convinces its citizens and others around the world that its power will be considerable and consequential in the future.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are heading to Egypt, apparently as symbols of democratic magnanimity that losers in political contests should not be rounded up and thrown in prison. 

Graham told CNN that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry believed it would be useful to send Obama's presidential opponent to Egypt to reinforce to Egypt's military a message of political inclusiveness. 

Senator Graham said:

I think it really does demonstrate how democracy works. They didn't put John McCain in jail so he could never come back again.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been running point on Egypt given the close ties between the U.S. and Egyptian military commands and has also been calling for political inclusiveness.  Here is the latest readout of Hagel's exchange with Egypt Defense Minister and coup leader Abdul Fatah al-Sisi:

Secretary Hagel spoke with his Egyptian counterpart, Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Fatah al-Sisi Saturday morning. Secretary Hagel expressed concern about the recent violence in Egypt and urged General al-Sisi to support an inclusive political process ... General al-Sisi affirmed to Secretary Hagel that Egypt's leadership remains committed to the political roadmap leading to elections and the formation of a constitution in Egypt.

Understandably, the Obama administration and legislators like McCain and Lindsey Graham are preaching restraint and 'inclusion' to the military leaders who are currently disappearing Morsi's key supporters and shooting protestors who want their President back in place. American calls for Egypt's generals to stop the killing are on the right track. 

But there is a second bizarre message being telegraphed to those Islamists protesting against the military takeover. Some, like Senator Graham are telling the Muslim Brothers to take their lumps and get back to a democratic process. 

In an exchange that aired last Sunday with Senator Graham on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Graham offered context on his and McCain's rationale for an Egypt trip now. He said that the Brotherhood had to "get out of the streets, back to the voting booth":

GRAHAM:  ...if you're going to pick between the two of us, Senator McCain is far more valuable than I am.  But, we've got a call from the president, Secretary Kerry, the message that the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood is to get out of the streets, back into the voting booth.

The Egyptian military must move more aggressively toward turning over control to the civilian population, civilian organizations. The military can't keep running the country. We need Democratic elections. The brotherhood needs to get off the streets and back into the political arena and fight your differences there, and we need to put Egypt back to work. If this continues, it's going to be a failed state. That's why we're going.

But the question that stands out here is why would Muslim Brotherhood members believe in democratic process now? Why would they consent to an electoral plan that asks them to acquiesce to their political leader being toppled if elected?

Adherents of political Islam have for years been debating amongst themselves the nuts and bolts of democratic process and have been struggling with the issue of whether democracy is primarily a tactic to achieve a victor-decides-all political result or whether it is an ongoing process that should include rights for other, not like-minded political entities. The Al Jazeera Centre for Studies has played a leading role in convening these MENA region political Islamists who have been engaging in these debates.

Whether seeing democracy as tactic or process, the key issue is that numerous revolutionaries in the Middle East North Africa nations chose a political rather than violent process for pursuing their aims. It seems that getting Islamists to believe that democratic process, rather than violence, can deliver on their aspirations should be a key national security objective of the United States, Europe, and other liberal powers.

But if this military coup is accepted in Egypt, without a significant rebuke from the world's leading democracies, why would political Islamists put any faith in the process again? There is an inherent contradiction in the Obama administration calling for "inclusiveness" from military leaders who staged a coup while simultaneously encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood to give voting a chance again. How is this not sending a message to young Islamists who previously played by democratic rules that their only real hope is through armed resistance and violence?

America's Egypt policy is twisted in a knot. It is an unusual moment when a realist like myself and a liberal interventionist like Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post or Brookings Doha Center Research Director and frequent writer about 'democracy' Shadi Hamid find ourselves in agreement. We all see negative consequences of purported democracy-hugging progressives riding to power on the backs of tanks -- while those who played by the rules, the Islamists in this case, are arrested and in some cases, killed.

Diehl, Shadi Hamid, and many neoconservatives and liberal interventionists see the Egyptian coup as violating fundamental democratic principles that the U.S. should be working hard to globally promote. 

Realists like myself see that cutting off a democratic option to Islamists assures that they will go underground, turn to violence, and/or make the firm decision that democracy is indeed just a tactic to fully dominating a political order, rather than one where power and governance are negotiated. A systemic shift away from non-violent political participation by Arab region youth poses strategic consequences for the U.S. and its allies.

America could decide that it supports a strong-man approach to ruling the Middle East and help support, arm, and fund a new generation of illiberal leaders in Egypt and elsewhere in the region who brutally suppress Islamists -- but that would entail enormous military and financial costs in these counties at levels approximating the height of the Cold War. There simply is no appetite among Americans today for that kind of realpolitik style of investment in global authoritarians.

But if supporting strong-man rule isn't a real option, America has to accept that those parties who engage in and ascend via democratic process may often be objectionable to Western progressives.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain would make history and help yield a third way out of the mess in Egypt if they supported the restoration of President Morsi while simultaneously securing a deal from him and the Muslim Brotherhood that they establish a more flexible and political-minority respecting political process. 

That option leaves the legitimacy of the Morsi election in place -- while giving Egypt's embryonic democracy an opportunity to work out its problems in the "inclusive" way the Obama administration is promoting. There will still be problems and pitfalls, but at least then young Islamists would be working inside the system, rather than fighting it violently on the outside.

More »

Reuters

Leo Hindery, Jr. is one of those big personalities in real life that we see characters trying to play in the movies.  He sees himself as a larger than life change agent, working to rewire America's social contract to be more fair to American workers. A former CEO of cable firm TCI, then AT&T Broadband, Global Crossing, and the Yankee Entertainment Sports Network, Hindery helped lead firms to rationalize their assets, streamline staffing, and pump up productivity. From a CEO perspective, he saw businesses offshore their production and service lines rather than re-invest in workers in the United States.

Believing that financial institutions were being deregulated even as the labor market was stuck in 1930s-era legal structures, Hindery believed that the American government, U.S. business leaders, and the markets were on track to wreck the foundations on which middle class America was based. 

He believed that workers would see their jobs continually off-shored, and their pensions and savings ripped off in a system increasingly designed to work at odds with them. In the end, Hindery surmised that this would forfeit America's future to other rising powers like China, which was making smart investments in manufacturing, infrastructure, and in workers.

As a CEO who found his soul and developed a profound concern for the state of American workers, Hindery wrote a book called It Takes a CEO: It's Time to Lead with Integrity, in which he argued for a new deal between workers, firms, government and the financial markets -- one that was fairer and more supportive of the aspirations of workers. I got to know him when he supported some of the work at the New America Foundation, where I had founded the American Strategy Program. 

After this, HIndery joined the worker-concerned presidential campaign of John Edwards as senior economic adviser to the failed and now legally beleaguered former candidate. When Edwards' campaign sputtered Hindery was assigned the task of proposing that the ascendant Obama take Edwards as his vice presidential running mate. Obama adviser David Axelrod shrugged that off, but Hindery nonetheless joined the Obama campaign ranks as someone carrying the flag for American working families and the eroding middle class.

As soon as Obama prevailed in his first presidential win, Hindery and many of the labor leaders and worker-concerned Congressional leaders working with him believed that their sector of campaign supporters would be elevated in Obama Land. This didn't happen. Instead, those with a general neoliberal economic tilt, who tended to see workers as micro-economic distractions to bigger macro-economic crises, took over the helm of Obama's financial and economic team.

A former big-time CEO who had turned into one of the nation's leading supporters of organized labor might have been perceived by Obama as the kind of bridge-builder he needed between divergent national economic factions -- he could have made for a distinctive Secretary of Commerce. But in fact, has America had a distinctive Secretary of Commerce? Not in recent memory -- not perhaps since the late Ron Brown held the post. Penny Pritzker, confirmed just weeks ago, may emerge as a Secretary of Commerce who finally does something -- but Hindery's profile indicates that he would have either succeeded or crashed in ways there that made Commerce consequential. But while he was on the list for the job, the administration kept him at arm's length, in part because "he was too close to labor," a White House source shared with me.

To make matters worse, Hindery offered a car and driver to his friend and business colleague Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader and leading health care adviser to the Obama campaign, as well as a potential vice-presidential running mate or chief of staff to Obama, which helped undermine Daschle's political perch in Obama Land. While the press reported this as Daschle accepting a gift on which he did not pay taxes, the real story is that Hindery kept on his payroll a driver he had known for years, whose health care needs were significant, and who desperately needed a job lest he and his family face destitution because of their medical costs. 

Hindery didn't need a full-time driver in Washington -- he lived in New York -- but he was moved by the needs of this individual and wanted to keep him working. That's the guy Daschle would occasionally get rides from, and that's what cost Daschle any number of political appointments.  Daschle's rivals kicked back with happy grins when they learned that the worker-loving Hindery had hurt Daschle's appointment prospects by helping out a struggling driver.

This context is important because whether Hindery was maladroit at points in his own political aspirations -- which included for a short time considering a Quixotic run for the presidency to raise the fact that the American middle class was under siege -- he has been obsessive in getting a fair deal for and more focus on the real plight of workers.

One of the ways the Obama administration, as well as many administrations before it, cheat American workers is through an institutionalized duplicity about worker employment figures.

For decades, the only employment numbers that anyone would discuss were those issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). For the latest month, June 2013, the BLS reported a 7.6% unemployment rate, noting that U.S. employers had added 195,000 non-farm jobs and that there were 11.8 million unemployed persons in the United States.

But in the last few years, Hindery's dogged efforts to get pundits, reporters, and policy practitioners to abandon discussion of "official unemployment" rates to "real unemployment" figures has percolated in the media more and more. The latest example was New York real estate baron and US News & World Report owner Mortimer Zuckerman's extensive discussion of the real unemployment challenges facing America in the Wall Street Journal last week, titled "A Jobless Recovery is a Phony Recovery."

In a monthly email that Hindery personally sends to leading members of Congress, labor leaders, a large flock of journalists ranging from Fox News to The Atlantic, business leaders, and others, he dissects the BLS statistics and notes what is missing.

Hindery says up front that the BLS only notes those specifically looking for work. That may make sense to some -- until one learns who is left out.

According to the Hindery report, those who are left under the rug of America's unemployment mess are a number of discouraged workers who have given up looking for work and partially-employed workers. He notes those that BLS does not include are:

a. Marginally attached workers, of whom there are now 2.6 million. These are workers who, "while wanting and available for jobs, have not searched for work in the past four weeks but have searched for work in the past twelve months." Currently included among them are 1.0 million "discouraged workers" who did not look for work specifically because "they believe there are no jobs available or none for which they would qualify."

b. Part-time-of-necessity workers, of whom there are now 8.2 million, are workers unable to find full-time jobs or who've had their hours cut back.  These workers are often referred to as the "underemployed". 

The zinger from the Hindery unemployment assessment is that:

In June 2013, the number of Real Unemployed Persons increased by 757,000 to 22.6 million and the Real Unemployment Rate increased by 0.4% to 14.3%, reflecting large increases in the number of "marginally attached" and "part-time-of-necessity" workers.

In other words, BLS reports that official unemployment stayed flat at 7.6% while Hindery's more extensive figures show that real unemployment increased by 0.4% to 14.3%.

As America struggles with not only those entering the workforce now but also those trying to stay in it and get back into it, it's important to realize that the scale of need is about 22.6 million jobs. That should be the policy target -- not some scaled down version that is more politically palatable.

For those interested, here is the Hindery report on real unemployment for June 2013. 

If anyone would like to receive this report on a monthly basis, email me at "sclemons @ theatlantic.com" or send a note to me on Twitter at @SCClemons, and I will forward my monthly report to those interested.

President Barack Obama made his first call for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to step down on Thursday, August 18, 2011 and then proceeded to enjoy a private 10-day vacation with his family on Martha's Vineyard. Nearly two years later, Assad is still in power, and it seems clear today that Obama's posturing nearly two years ago was unattached to an action plan to achieve Assad's ouster.

At the time, liberal interventionists and neoconservative hawks pommeled the White House for dragging its heels in finally calling for Assad's ouster, and many of these critics claimed credit for Obama's eventual statement that the United States government favored regime change in Syria. 

Perhaps Obama believed that Assad's position would crumble like that of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who did relinquish power after President Obama called for him to step down. In the Egypt case, then-Senator John Kerry called for Mubarak to step down on Tuesday, the February 1. The following day, Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain "broke with the President" and joined Kerry's call to Mubarak for the President to step down.

Within a week, President Obama called for Mubarak to step down and to transfer power -- and to the surprise of many, though it was messy, Mubarak did relinquish his power.  he United States had leverage over a large package of military and non-military aid that the U.S. provided Egypt each year -- but otherwise, the Obama White House helped through persuasion and diplomacy to tip the scales against Mubarak, a process the protestors in Tahir Square had put in motion.

Huffing and puffing worked. There was no need for an "intervention plan" to deliver a political transition in Egypt, like appears to be needed in Syria.

When presidents call for the ouster of other presidents, particularly without a strategy to deliver those results, lines are drawn and diplomatic and political options are decreased. Obama's call for Assad's departure, prolifically reiterated in public comments by Obama since, foreclosed the possibility of a real partnership with the Syria-hugging Russia in engineering a transition. 

The Russians, who have interests in not seeing the sectarian hostilities inside Syria drive other regional and transnational ethnic instabilities, have suggested numerous times that the White House walk back its rhetoric on Assad having to leave -- and then get all parties to commit to an election process or governance structure that would be inclusive of those protesting against the government. This is surely short of revolution that many human rights and global justice advocates desired -- but it might have been the best strategy to get the killing to stop.

Interestingly, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has been trying to push the White House to engage not only with Russia but with other global powers like India, Japan, and China -- as opposed to the regionally-reviled former colonial powers of England and France -- to call for an election process that would achieve transition and yet give Assad a face-saving way out of power. 

In an interview with The National Interest's Jacob Heilbrunn, Brzezinski states:

. . .there should be some sort of internationally sponsored elections in Syria, in which anyone who wishes to run can run, which in a way saves face for Assad but which might result in an arrangement, de facto, in which he serves out his term next year but doesn't run again.

The entire interview is worth reading, as Brzezinski outlines how strategically inchoate America's Syria strategy has been. He notes that President Obama calls for Assad's ouster and then green-lights David Petraeus-led covert provision of weapons and war counsel to Syrian rebels through the national proxies of Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and then backs off when it becomes clear that the most ferocious (and then successful) parts of the Syrian opposition were Islamic extremist militants of the sort America had been battling for a decade in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East North Africa region.

Now, America is back in the game of the Syrian civil war and has used low-level use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime to justify stepping up military support provided directly to the rebels by the US. America has taken a side in the war -- and the Russians and Iranians are on the other. Thus, underway today in Syria is now clearly a proxy battle between regional and great global powers set on top of a sectarian civil war.

If one of America's top global strategic priorities is influencing the strategic course of Iran and its decision to build nuclear weapons, then investing resources deeply inside the Syrian conflict should be measured against that goal. 

Does America's alignment with the rebels enhance or hinder American points of leverage with Iran? When it came to the same question with regard to Afghanistan, also a neighbor of Iran, there was no question that Iran perceived America's engagement there to be a constraint on U.S. power, not an amplifier. Iran felt more emboldened by America trapping its resources and attention there. Iran may very well see that its proxy of Hezbollah, now operating inside Syria against the rebels, gives it an upper hand against the U.S. and Gulf State-supported rebels and helps to distract the US from its other global strategic ambitions.

Brzezinski makes the point that Obama's response to Syria has been reactive rather than proactive and consistent, that the president is being nudged into the worst kind of "ineffective interventionism."  

The Heilbrunn-Brzezinski exchange:

Heilbrunn: How slippery is the slope? Obama was clearly not enthusiastic about sending the arms to the Syrian rebels--he handed the announcement off to Ben Rhodes. How slippery do you think this slope is? Do you think that we are headed towards greater American intervention?

Brzezinski: I'm afraid that we're headed toward an ineffective American intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes. But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it's simply damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not understand why--and that refers to my first answer--why we concluded somewhere back in 2011 or 2012--an election year, incidentally--that Assad should go.

When Obama empowered his National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to move forward on a Libyan military intervention, including a no fly zone plus other measures to neutralize Moammer Qaddafi's offensive military machine against Benghazi, certain criteria needed to be satisfied first. These included securing both regional and international support for the intervention -- that meant Arab League and UN Security Council support. Though Russia and China abstained in the United Nations, Donilon secured these key criteria required then by Obama.

Obama also would not agree to any military action in Libya unless the commitment of force would make a clear tipping-point change in circumstances on the ground and give the advantage to the Benghazi-based rebels. In addition, the military footprint would have to remain small, limited in duration and scope.

Libya, somewhat like Syria, did not represent a challenge to vital U.S. national security interests -- but an intervention could be justified on other grounds, in the case of Libya on what was feared to be mass slaughter of Benghazi citizens by Qaddafi's forces, and in Syria by the red line trigger of chemical weapons use.

In the case of Libya, Obama acted surgically and preempted the typical slippery slope to a larger military intervention that involved "owning the outcomes" inside Libya. Obama's strategy worked, and the U.S. in partnership with France, England, the UAE, and Qatar delivered a low-cost political transition inside Libya. 

With Syria, Obama is behaving in ways that run counter to the decision criteria he applied in Libya. He is committing intelligence and military resources to a crisis that does not have UN Security Council sanction, and he is not framing his response to the chemical weapons use in terms of either punishing the commanders who authorized their use -- or to secure those weapons. Instead, Obama is joining the rebel forces and committing to a regime change formula that could potentially falter. And that is before calculating the global strategic costs of getting in a nasty stand-off with Russia whose support is needed on other global challenges.

This is sloppy interventionism -- strategically inchoate, potentially at conflict with other larger and more important U.S. strategic goals, and potentially the kind of commitment that obligates the United States to support a rebellion that America avoided doing in the Libyan case.

The question of what exactly comprises the Obama doctrine is getting murkier by the week.  How does intervening in Syria help or hinder America's broader global objectives in shaping Iran's nuclear pretensions? Does intervention in Syria constrain American power or leverage it? If the rebels were to succeed, what will America's position be in Syria Civil War 2.0 between the rebels America likes and the Islamic extremist rebels it doesn't? 

Why did the administration's response to Syrian regime chemical weapons use not involve either punitive measures against the commanders that ordered their use -- nor a strategy to secure those weapons?

The success of President Obama's foreign policy depends on how well he implements a strategy and sticks to it. The Asia pivot comes to mind -- as opposed to having his foreign policy focus hijacked by events and forcing him into reactive national security decisions.

Syria as it looks today will likely take a decade or longer for forces inside to burn out and to come to some internal political terms.  Many will tragically die -- and the ability of outside players to influence internal outcomes inside Syria will be very limited.  Obama needs to settle in for a long Syrian sectarian conflict and avoid silver bullet options. 

President Obama needs to get back to what he was doing for the last two years -- avoid getting caught up in the Syrian storm, his call for Assad's ouster aside.  Obama was right to remain focused on the economic and national security challenges really facing the United States and avoid those challenges that are peripheral.

Reuters/Gary Cameron

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez takes on Washington Post veteran reporter Walter Pincus this morning with a Syria-related letter to the editor in this morning's paper. Menendez writes "his wrongheaded commentary fell into an oversimplified story line that Congress is broken."

I think Menendez doesn't get what Pincus is saying, which was:

I have enormous respect for the committee's power to influence foreign policy when it plays its rightful role, but I also believe the actions of the current panel reflect the dysfunction in today's Congress.

The Constitution gives the president sole power to make foreign policy. The Senate does have its roles to play. Under the Constitution, it must give "advice and consent" to treaties and approve presidential appointees, such as ambassadors.

It also must approve funding of the president's budget, and through that process it has an opportunity to adopt, reject or even reshape foreign policy initiatives. By investigating and holding hearings, Senate Foreign Relations and other congressional committees can create public understanding -- and support or opposition -- to a president's foreign policy agenda.

But trying to legislate what President Obama should do when it comes to initiating military intervention in Syria, through providing arms or nonlethal aid, is going too far.

Menendez confirms Pincus' point in his letter this morning by writing, "In crafting this bill, which passed 15 to 3, the committee sought to tip the scales against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and toward groups working to build a free Syria."

More »

Last evening in Manhattan, Senator John McCain met with supporters of a new center named in his honor called the John McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University. McCain spoke and displayed all of the maverick, straight talk qualities that have both propelled his political career and made him a frustrating partner to many in both parties who have wanted him to either be a cookie cutter conservative or a progressive in GOP attire.

McCain said nothing that would surprise those who know him. He said that the Senate and GOP had to move forward on immigration and that the border control issue was being robustly addressed. He said that these contentious bills of the day probably needed to be wrapped up in a grand bargain that included Republicans compromising on raising new tax revenue and Obama and Democrats conceding that entitlement programs had to be transformed and redirected on to sustainable paths. He said that in his entire political career, he had not seen the temperature on an issue so hot as on the post-Newtown gun legislation. One of his key aides pulled me aside and reminded me that McCain had offered in the past an even stronger version of background checks legislation than the Manchin-Toomey version that recently failed in the Senate but may be back.

Last night, John McCain was the Republican that both Democrats and Independents actually do love, way deep down, even as they publicly deny it. When McCain is speaking truths that he did last night, he is tough to resist. The bottom line is that had John McCain not befuddled his brand with Sarah Palin, many MSNBC watchers could have lived with the presidential version of John McCain they heard last night.

And then Senator McCain said to the assembled wealthy blown away by the effusive radical centrism they had just heard, "Watch the Benghazi hearings tomorrow. They will be interesting."

McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have locked their jaws on the Obama administration's management of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the way information was released afterward. The Senators have asserted that the administration is covering up key details of the attack and charge dereliction of leadership and responsibility against both the President and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I have reviewed the Benghazi timelines that conservatives Stephen Hayes and Doug Ross have put together, watched the hearings in which Hillary Clinton prevailed for the most part over theatrically overperforming Senators, and with many, mourned the tragic loss of a great man, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.

At most, until now, what I have mostly seen in the material is partisan posturing exploiting a real tragedy. The State Department is under-resourced on security, and the GOP has been a key part of keeping the diplomatic accounts far too lean both in terms of core security and in terms of supporting the vital forward-directed diplomatic needs America has in convulsive but important parts of the world today.

It's clear to me that the Department of State still has byzantine silos and corridors that inhibit fast flow of information and decision-making, and this deserves scrutiny, rebuke, and demands remedy. And while I think that there is no evidence at all that Ambassador Susan Rice manipulated anything and actually performed well, speaking the scripts being handed her by those concerned about revealing U.S. intelligence assets, there also is an obsessiveness about secrecy inside presidential administrations -- whether run by Democratic or Republican presidents -- that corrodes public trust and undermines some aspects of our form of democracy. It was White House and CIA worry about acknowledging the intelligence assets and contractors in place that resulted in what some on the political right have wrongly framed as 'lies to the nation."

But then all of a sudden, the former Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Libya, Gregory Hicks, has emerged with a story of his own -- outlining requests made on his end for the movement of a U.S. Special Forces unit that he says was blocked. In testimony that has already been released, Hicks makes clear that the unit could not have prevented the loss of life that unfolded. Bret Bair of Fox News has apparently reported that he heard that the Special Forces units could have intervened and made a difference -- a matter now in dispute.

But where Hicks, who has all of a sudden found himself embraced by many conservative political action operatives, is absolutely right is that the unit could have helped provide aid and helped to stand off any further terrorist action against U.S. or allied personnel in Benghazi beyond what occurred. One did not necessarily know when or how the conflict would end -- others could have perished that night even if the Special Forces personnel would have not mattered in the first two phases of the siege.

Hicks matters not because his testimony reveals that the outcome on the ground per se would have been any different. He matters because none of us knew about his requests or role until a few days ago.

That is unacceptable. I don't know Hicks, but he has a distinguished record of service. Thus far, his account -- which will be discussed at length today in U.S. Senate hearings -- has largely been substantiated by spokespeople for the Pentagon and Department of State. He may be angry and wants to set history right about what happened, when. I don't blame him for this at all and hope that he manages a judiciousness in his commentary that helps the public achieve what it deserves -- the truth.

But the administration needs to step back and ask how is it that Hicks, no matter what his story might have been, was never offered as part of the story. He is sharing nothing I yet see that would have changed the outcome on the ground.

Obsessive executive branch secrecy is a problem for the country -- and the White House has been caught by John McCain and Lindsey Graham when there was no reason at all that this needed to be the case.

Several academics emailed me yesterday about an email from Palgrave Macmillian Publishers titled "Debating Israeli Apartheid Week" and then listing a number of books representing the Palestinian side of the argument, all published by publishing houses that Palgrave MacMillan distributes.  

As noted in the box above, Palgrave MacMillan writes:

Debating Israeli Apartheid Week

In conjunction with the 9th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week, take a look at our featured titles from our distribution partners Pluto Press, I.B. Tauris Publishers and Zed Books, bringing attention to this moment of the Palestinian struggle.

Learn more about the IAW here and join the debate!

One of the emails to me referencing this book roster said "Boy, after Hagel won confirmation, guess the dam broke and things are changing fast."

Listed among the books were Generation Palestine: Voices from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement; Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy; Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propoganda in Education; and Narrating Conflict in the Middle East: Discourse, Image and Communications Practices in Lebanon and Palestine.

Several thoughts: First, Senator Chuck Hagel's confirmation as President Obama's new Secretary of Defense is more disconnected from the Israel-Palestine ball field than most want to admit, but his confirmation gives pragmatic policy thinking a bit of a boost -- but it doesn't come at the cost of the turbo-charged pro-Israel community. I offer that modifier to distinguish between the ultra-pro-Israel crowd and the less-hyperventilating pro-Israel crowd a la J Street.

Second, things haven't changed at Palgrave MacMillan. Received this email today from them:

In response to our earlier email

Palgrave Macmillan would like to express our regrets for the e-mail sent in error on Monday morning.

While many of our authors have published seminal works debating various aspects of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and Palgrave Macmillan is committed to promoting scholarship, research and debate on this difficult topic, we would never endorse one particular political point of view. The wording used in the e-mail is unacceptable, and the e-mail does not represent the views of Palgrave Macmillan, distribution partners or its employees.

The e-mail was sent without having gone through the usual checks and processes, for which we sincerely apologise. We are working with the team involved to find out how this happened, and to ensure it does not happen again.

Amy Bourke
Corporate Communications Manager
Palgrave Macmillan

The books that Palgrave highlighted are actually interesting and worthwhile books to read. They are academic, reality based, and thoughtful. I'm sure that there are equally constructive, probing books on the other side of the argument as well -- and some likely published by Palgrave.

It would have been useful of Palgrave MacMillan to modify its invalidation of the first email -- which it argued implied endorsement of Israeli Apartheid Week -- with books that argue that this is an unfair and incorrect framing of the Palestinian-Israel circumstance.

I wonder if in the time of Eisenhower of JFK, if a publisher had sent a list of books out highlighting American civil rights struggles if it would have been withdrawn in the way that Palgrave did. 

It's important for people to realize that the Israel-Palestine situation is not solved, remains tortured for people on both sides, that permanent displacement of people from their homes and land is not something most Americans or others around the world want to accept as a fait accompli.

The enthusiasm of the first Palgrave note was perhaps in poor taste -- but not the notion of marketing books to people who have an interest in this subject. 

I recommend that Palgrave find other books that it either distributes or those that even rival houses publish to show the other side of the argument, those who disagree strongly with the notion that Israel is evolving towards a racially, religiously and ethnically divided Apartheid state. I'd probably also add a roster of books that contain different future visions for Israel -- ranging from one that goes back to borders from 1947, or alternatively from 1967, or that essentially absorbs the Occupied Territories in a greater Israel with borders further out than those recognized today. 

Those kinds of rosters would promote smart and interesting policy discussion on an important and painful subject that should not be ignored.

More »

The Hagel nomination fight is done. It's time to move on to challenges that matter and get beyond personality politics.

Some still seem to want to fight battles over who did what to whom, and I agree with Dana Milbank that a disconcerting strand of McCarthyism appeared in this fight and was fortunately beaten back. That said, I think after a battle it's important to show respect to those who were on the other side.

They have different priorities. They see the world differently -- and it's important to understand that and salute their own magnanimity after this sort of skirmish.

Bill Kristol put out the following statement yesterday. It's classy, and as good as it will get from the side who really did not want to see Hagel confirmed. Had the Hagel backers lost, I hope they (and I) would have found a track to be magnanimous and future-oriented.

Statement by William Kristol, Chairman, Emergency Committee for Israel, on the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense:

We fought the good fight, and are proud to have done so. We salute all those -- Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews -- who joined with us in the effort to secure a better Secretary of Defense. We are heartened that the overwhelming majority of senators from one of the two major parties voted against confirming Mr. Hagel.

We take some comfort in Mr. Hagel's confirmation conversions on the issues of Israel and Iran, and do believe that, as a result of this battle, Mr. Hagel will be less free to pursue dangerous policies at the Defense Department and less inclined to advocate them within the administration.

And since hope is an American characteristic and a Jewish virtue, we will also say that we hope Mr. Hagel will rise to the occasion and successfully discharge his weighty duties. In this task we wish him well. This battle against Chuck Hagel is over.

The fight for a principled, pro-Israel foreign policy goes on.

While I don't agree with the framing or principal points in Kristol's note, I respect the spirit of them. 

When John Bolton resigned, after his recess-appointed term as ambassador in the United Nations ended, I did my best to remind people of his considerable capabilities and his service to the nation, despite what many perceived to be deficits in his views on what American internationalism should be. This is what the contending sides in many of our policy battles need to demonstrate; it's a good and important lesson for America's youth watching the behavior of national leaders and even pundits.

It's interesting to me that while Bolton never received a Senate vote on his appointment to serve as UN ambassador, he did have a vote when he was confirmed as under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. He received 43 no votes against his confirmation, not unlike the 41 nays against Hagel.

Those who supported Bolton then didn't believe that those substantial nays crippled him, and he went on -- in their eyes -- to accomplish substantial things, like the Proliferation Security Initiative (which I liked) and an ongoing assault on international institutions and treaties that they feel crimp American sovereignty (where I have differences).

Hopefully, Secretary of Defense Hagel will continue to impress his advocates with his smart strategic sensibilities and leadership -- but will also draw even grudging respect from those who are his skeptics. 

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the new ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, think they have found a way to gum up progress on the confirmation process of Chuck Hagel.

They want "copies" of speeches he has reportedly given and for which he was occasionally compensated. Hagel has sent  all available speeches -- including video fragments or transcripts if they exist -- to the committee and has  confessed that he just didn't use prepared texts for a number of these possibly great moments of Hagel oratory. 

But they seem to want them anyway!

While I personally think Hagel is always better with a prepared text (Sorry Chuck), like many US senators -- including Inhofe and Cruz no doubt -- Hagel thinks he gives pretty good remarks without the scribbles drafted by an aide organizing his words. Believe me, Chuck Hagel is wrong on this, but he suffers from the same delusions that nearly all of his peers do. From my perspective, Hagel is a top notch thinker and strategist -- but his speaking could always get a boost from a Jon Lovett- or Jon Favreau-type. After all, look what Lovett did for Obama's Correspondent's Dinner fun with Donald Trump.

I've seen John McCain, Jim Inhofe, Jeff Sessions, Roy Blunt and others speak extemporaneously -- and if they were in Hagel's seat, I'm sure they'd be a bit miffed if senators Jeanne Shaheen or Carl Levin or Joe Manchin were pounding on them to produce speech texts that don't exist. They need to get over it. Calling Hagel a "liar" is beneath them, beneath the institution in which they work, and not healthy for democracy.

They also want financial information about donations received by and business done in the private and public firms Hagel was associated with but did not actually control.

Ted Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Let's turn this around a bit. Should Cruz's wife, Heidi, eventually be nominated for something big time -- or Senator Cruz himself have ambitions beyond his senate perch -- will he be able to compel her to make Goldman Sachs, which has considerable equities involving the US national interest, disclose its business and relationships domestic and foreign? I certainly hope not. Wrong way to get at Goldman Sachs -- and an inappropriate expectation from the eventually-nominated-to-something Ted or Heidi Cruz.

Goldman Sachs is a private firm. Chevron, for whom Hagel sits on a board of directors, is a private firm. The Atlantic Council, whose board Hagel is also on, is a nonprofit, private firm.

If the Senate wants to call a hearing about Chevron's business or the Atlantic Council's international funders and activities, it should do so! By all means.

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman once sat on the board of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, an institution that I am proud of and for which I was grateful for the support of these Senators. But it would be wrong for any United States senator or committee to think that John McCain could force the Nixon Center (now the Center for the National Interest) to disclose private financial information on his behalf.

Should Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin see merit in the requests made by Senators Cruz and others about matters that are proprietary to private firms and not in Hagel's latitude to offer, then this is going to be a really fun slippery slope. The entangled relationships of all US senators and spouses would be screened to see what they might be able to cough up about firms they have some connection to but don't run.

I don't think we should go down that road -- but if Senator Cruz compels it, it should be interesting.

5:52 pm.  The Senate Armed Service Committee hearings on Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination to serve as the next Secretary of Defense were grueling and just ended. 

Hagel was rarely humorous and basically plodded through cautiously, seriously, professorially taking a lot of hits from mostly GOP critics on the Committee.  The Dem members, for the most part, seemed to want statements on the record that would allow them to justify a yes vote in support of Hagel.  Gillibrand wanted to hear about protections for LGBT rights and women.  Shaheen wanted to protect NH shipyards.  Senator Donnelly wanted commitment to support the National Guard.  Mark Udall wanted specific statements of support for Israel -- and statements that the military option was on the table with regard to Iran.

I'll reflect on the day later as I need to get to MSNBC's studio -- but I have to note that Senators Jeff Sessions, Kelly Ayotte, and Roy Blunt -- despite obvious concerns and potential opposition to Hagel did it with class and civility.  They knew their stuff.  They were Hagel's toughest, most serious critics -- and I don't think Hagel won them over.

Senators Cruz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Inhofe seemed to want to have a public fight and wanted to do all they could to force Hagel into confessions of past sins.  Cruz oddly had bad information suggesting that Chas Freeman and Hagel were intimately connected and travel buddies.  Bad staff work on that front.

While many will make much of the exchange with McCain, Hagel won I think -- in the sense that he reminded Americans that their are multiple costs associated with military action and in determining whether the Iraq surge was a success, Hagel reminded that 1,200 Americans died during that action and thousands more were injured. 

Bottom line is that I think Hagel -- who has the rough edge and war-forged voice of a real soldier -- met expectations but did not really beat them.  Kissengerian humor injected into discussions of war and peace would have helped a lot.  Nonetheless, I expect that all of those inclined to support Hagel yesterday will stay where they are -- and those predisposed against him will remain where they are.

I think that there are a good number more Senators willing to confirm than not -- and those numbers were not moved or altered by today's performance.

4:54 pm.  Hagel tells Senator Manchin that he'll always be honest with Congress; always give them what's going on straight.  That was an impressive moment.

Manchin concludes reflecting on an old West Virginia saying that "If you can't change you mind, you can't change anything." Hagel chuckled.

4:49 pm.  Senator Joe Manchin starts out the next round of questions saying that he wants to apologize for some of the tone and demeanor shown by some others on the Armed Services Committee.  Manchin asks Hagel how he got into Vietnam -- and then Hagel smartly noted that he knew Manchin tried repeatedly to enlist but was blocked because of knee problems.  Good move by Hagel.

Hagel now speaking about his early military enlistment process -- and it's always good TV to listen to a hero of military service talk about what he did to serve the nation in wartime.  Many vets will appreciate Hagel's story.

LOL.  Finally some humor!!  Hagel acknowledges that many leading Israelis have endorsed his candidacy as Secretary of Defense.  Manchin said apparently other countries want him -- and Hagel says, "Yes, it seems Iran wants me," with a chuckle.  Well handled.  This hearing could have used more humor.

4:39 pm  Senator Inhofe just said that he is stating his own thoughts, not those of any other interests.  Hallelujah.  Good for a US Senator to get to that frame.  Inhofe says he believes Egyptian President Morsi is an enemy -- and Egypt's military is a friend.  Interesting and pretty binary perspective. 

Senator Inhofe also asked Hagel whether he personally thought Inhofe's questions about the Iranian government's alleged enthusiasm for Hagel was disrespectful.  Hagel said no and that he thought it was a legitimate question. 

I disagree.  I think that the question was tantamount to asking Hagel if he was a traitor -- so count me as one who thought that the question was out of line -- and questioned the core patriotism of Chuck Hagel.

So with all due respect to Senator Inhofe, I do think he should reconsider his line of attack on that.  It is disrespectful to ask someone like Hagel whether they are American patriots or are instead dupes representing foreign countries -- whether Israel or Iran or China or the Brits or Japan.

4:34 pm.  Senator Shaheen draws Hagel to reiterate his statement of support for Israel's security.  This is interesting as a core part of Shaheen's constituency in New Hampshire are Arab-Americans, mostly Lebanon-descended.  I liked her response because it showed as well that she does not make a false choice between those with a strong interest in Israel and those with a strong interest in other parts of the Middle East.

4:27 pm.  Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for whom I have a lot of time, finally sort of gets something many other US Senators on the Armed Services Committee don't get.  She realizes Hagel is likely to be confirmed and that he will have tons of influence on which US military assets are shuttered and which are reinforced.  Shaheen just got Hagel's commitment to keep some New Hampshire military assets, particularly shipyards, bolstered and in good financial health.  Smart.  Not sure the Texas delegation is going to be all that welcome by those who seem themselves part of the Chuck Hagel franchise at the Pentagon -- though I'm fairly sure that Hagel will not bear any ill will towards Senators Cruz, Inhofe, and Cornyn and won't penalize their military assets when real austerity measures hit the DoD budget.

But those who see themselves as Hagelites?  Not so sure, Texas and Oklahoma will make much headway with them.

4:11 pm. Senator Tim Kaine is demonstrating a facility with national security issues that shows he knows something more about all of this than the notes his staff hands him. I wish a good number of the other Senators on the United States Armed Services Committee knew more about armed services, foreign policy and national security policy challenges facing the country. Some are detail savvy -- but not enough of them.
 


This was a strange exchange between Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Chuck Hagel earlier today in the hearings.  Senator Graham pounds Hagel to name "one dumb thing" that the US Congress did as a result of what Hagel had inaptly termed "the Jewish lobby" in an interview with Aaron David Miller.

The real fact is Hagel never said that Congress had done something stupid.  He actually said that the Lobby had done stupid things that had ultimately undermined the interests of Israel. 

Here is a post I did about this earlier:

2:05 pm.  Interesting factoid.  Senator Lindsey Graham hammered Chuck Hagel to give him one instance of when the Congress had done something stupid in response to the Israel, or as Hagel said, Jewish Lobby.  The fact is that Hagel, in the interview with Aaron David Miller, never said Congress had done anything stupid as a result of the lobby. 

What Hagel really said is that the lobby does some 'dumb things' that are not in the interest of Israel.  Ambassador and then Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman once told a visiting group that AIPAC, like some other diaspora groups, sometimes hugs so much that it hurts. 

That aside, here is exactly what Hagel said:

"The political reality is that you intimidate, not you -- that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't think it's in the interest of Israel. I just don't think it's smart for Israel. Now, everyone has a right to lobby; that's as it should be. Come see your senator, your congressman, and if you can get the guy to sign your letter, great, wonderful. But as I reminded somebody not too long ago, in fact it was a group I was speaking to in New York, and we got into kind of an interesting give and take on Iran. A couple of these guys said we should just attack Iran. And I said, 'Well, that's an interesting thought; we're doing so well in Iraq.' And I said it would really help Israel. And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt. I said, 'I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.' I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States -- not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that. Now I know most senators don't talk like I do.

3:55 pm  Senator Mike Lee is trying to trip Hagel up on Israel-Palestine security issues, but it seems to me that Lee started off oddly, defining Israel as potentially America's most important ally globally.  What happened to the UK, to Japan, to other states that actually throw a great deal of their own resources into large geostrategic challenges facing the United States.  Israel is important no doubt -- but more important than these two other vital relationships?

2:05 pm.  Interesting factoid.  Senator Lindsey Graham hammered Chuck Hagel to give him one instance of when the Congress had done something stupid in response to the Israel, or as Hagel said, Jewish Lobby.  The fact is that Hagel, in the interview with Aaron David Miller, never said Congress had done anything stupid as a result of the lobby. 

What Hagel really said is that the lobby does some 'dumb things' that are not in the interest of Israel.  Ambassador and then Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman once told a visiting group that AIPAC, like some other diaspora groups, sometimes hugs so much that it hurts. 

That aside, here is exactly what Hagel said:

"The political reality is that you intimidate, not you -- that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't think it's in the interest of Israel. I just don't think it's smart for Israel. Now, everyone has a right to lobby; that's as it should be. Come see your senator, your congressman, and if you can get the guy to sign your letter, great, wonderful. But as I reminded somebody not too long ago, in fact it was a group I was speaking to in New York, and we got into kind of an interesting give and take on Iran. A couple of these guys said we should just attack Iran. And I said, 'Well, that's an interesting thought; we're doing so well in Iraq.' And I said it would really help Israel. And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt. I said, 'I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.' I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States -- not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that. Now I know most senators don't talk like I do.

1:57 pm.  In response to Senator Donnelly from Indiana, Chuck Hagel says that this is the time in which we are debating what the core military mission of the nation will be. He said that this is a time of 'choices and priorities'.  Hagel went on to say that the entire universe of what our responsibilities will be and how we will be tasked with carrying out those missions in defense of the security of the United States is what he and the Committee were discussing today. Hagel says that the authorizing role of the committees in Congress will have substantial sway in the direction of America's national security mission.

Hagel said that he would be strongly supportive of the National Guard, in further equipping them and assuring resources there for those in reserve to back up active global US military missions.

1:45 pm.  Senator Roy Blunt opens with a generous and civil tone -- admitting that much of what he might have wanted to discuss about Israel and unilateral sanctions towards Iran, which he helped marshal forward and draft in the House of Representatives, had been exhausted in earlier discussion -- but then Blunt asked a smart question about the size, capabilities, and battle readiness of America's military forces.

Blunt cited a Wall Street Journal article saying that US forces just aren't where they should be. Hagel responded that we have work to do -- but the fact is, as Hagel said, "we have been at war for 12 years now."  Hagel and Blunt seemed to agree that we need to be smart about the investments in the future of the military forces, so that the US does not lose its edge in military capacity.

Hagel has also said that we will have to work to maintain the defense industrial base.  He said that the uncertainties of the sequester have created a great deal of stress and uncertainty in the system about the defense systems acquisition process -- and we need to get beyond that uncertainty.  Fair point.

1:30 pm.  Senator Lindsey Graham once participated in a great evening at the Motion Picture Association in which his favorite film, Seven Days in May, was screened.  It was an outstanding event -- and the Senator articulated that the film reminded him of the dangers of "military demagoguery." The film focused on the rise of the military and the threat it posed to civilian leadership in the White House. 

It's interesting that Graham is posing questions (and seeming to answer them for Hagel) that express Graham's support for a martial posture in military affairs -- rather than allowing discussion of restraint.  Hagel seemed to do a good job of responding to a number of Senator Graham's concerns, agreeing with him on the characterization of Iran as a terrorist state.  I don't think Graham's concerns that Hagel did not jump on the bandwagon and support a letter co-signed by 96 other Senators about Israel's security did not come off well.  It's interesting to note, just in contrast, that Senators Cornyn, Cruz, and Inhofe didn't jump on the bandwagon of support for John Kerry's confirmation either. 

More on this issue of letter-signing later.

1:21 pm.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand getting Hagel to commit to stronger leadership in looking after women serving in the military forces reflecting on the reports of abuse and violence, as well as rapes, toward women.  She asked him about Israel, about Iran, about gays -- and got him on the record committing to strong support of Israel's security and a commitment to keep all options open on Iran.  He said he would institute a zero tolerance policy on violence towards women.

Previously, Senator Joe Manchin praised Hagel's independence -- of saying that he didn't determine his votes by the votes of others, and Manchin embraced that -- saying he was often in the same position.

One of the views that Senator Manchin holds that I hope gets more air time eventually is that despite the increase in military spending over time, the number of men and women in uniform has mostly stayed flat.  The implication is that much of the increases in defense spending have gone to accounts that haven't increased the muscle and structure of the actual military -- but have increased the amount of resources going to private contractors.  Expect to hear more about this subject as we move past the Hagel hearings to real discussions of what the future of defense spending will look like.

12:54 pm.  Now watching the hearings from MSNBC studio.  Senator Ayotte is challenging Hagel on perceived discrepancies between the much-discussed Global Zero report and some of his statements in the hearing.  She was civil, but pointed and really wants Hagel to defend the current structure of America's nuclear deterrent.  The problem I have with this line of questioning is that Ayotte and Hagel could create a genuine learning moment by thinking through the unthinkables about the parts of the nuclear deterrent that will eventually become anachronistic.  For me, manned bombers are part of that withering triad.

12:04 pm.  Senator Mark Udall asks Hagel to clarify his position on LGBT rights, and Hagel makes clear his strong support for LGBT rights, consistent with current law.

I am now rushing out to appear on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show Mitchell Reports. I will post updates as I can. 

11:52 am. Senator Saxby Chambliss just offered Chuck Hagel his congratulations on his nomination and expressed strong feelings of friendship for Hagel. But now he has asked Hagel to drill down into Iran issues -- and quoted from Hagel's book in which the defense secretary nominee said that given that we stumbled through faulty intel into a mistaken war with Iraq, we needed to be ever more careful in our positioning and posturing towards Iran. Chambliss asks Hagel why we should 'dialogue' with a terrorist state like Iran and asks him why Hagel did not vote to support designating Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Hagel responds first on the Revolutionary Guard issue. Hagel reminds Chambliss that there were 22 US Senators against this designation. Hagel references former Senator Jim Webb who articulated during the IRGC debate that the US had never designated a part of a legitimate, sovereign government a terrorist organization.

Webb's view was that voting to pass was tantamount to giving the President of the United States authority to go to war with Iran, without coming back to Congress for its consent and approval. Hagel believed that we were already in two wars at the time and was not ready to give easy consent to the White House to engage in a third war without the advice and consent of the Senate. Notes that then Senators Lugar and Biden -- Republican and Democrat -- both voted against the IRGC terrorist organization legislation.

Hagel also believes that President Obama has gone as far as he should probably go publicly in defining the 'red lines' that matter in consideration of a potential military strike against Iran. Hagel says that Obama has "said he has Israel's back."

Hagel said that Iran is probably as great a threat as the US has today -- but also says that North Korea is 'beyond a threat' as a nuclear power, and that Pakistan remains a troubling and complex problem.

Hagel says that the best way to deal with Iran is to try every possible initiative -- says engagement is what great powers do -- before considering a new war. War should be last resort. Hagel says engagement is not appeasement.

11:27 am.  Super full house here.  It's impressive that Senator Jeff Sessions has read and knows in depth the Global Zero report on rethinking and restructuring America's nuclear forces.  He is showing himself to be a high quality thinker and raising serious issues which are potentially different from the positions Hagel holds.  That said, Hagel is testifying under oath that there is a difference between a report that considers long in the future adjustments to America's nuclear profile -- and those that should be our policy tomorrow.  

A couple of my own thoughts on this.  Hagel is a strategic thinker, considering the kinds of hard choices America will have to make in the future.  He should be rewarded and not penalized for thinking about these tough issues in creative ways.  Washington, DC is filled with risk averse people who never sign on to anything potentially controversial because of the prospect that they may have to defend creative, future-oriented, non-status quo thinking at a Senate confirmation hearing.

I think Hagel is solidly in line with what Sessions actually believes -- though their views of the future differ.  That said, Sessions wins points for seriousness, for a deep dive that is creating a quality encounter.  He is civil -- and whether he supports Hagel or not, I'm impressed with both Sessions and Hagel in this particular exchange over America's nuclear posture and the structure of its forces.

11:24 am.  All of the traffic on Chuck #Hagel seems to be crashing Twitter over and over again.  What's up with this? 

11:18 am.  In response to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Hagel explains that one of the frames through which he considers the cost-benefit results of military deployments is from the perspective of the US serviceman and servicewoman sent to front lines.  He reminds that 1,200 Americans were killed during the Iraq surge and thousands of others urged.  He says he is not sure that these results were worth what was achieved inside Iraq and whether America's strategic assets were enhanced.

11:05 am. Senator John McCain opens up directly and bluntly -- saying that these are not minor differences between friends but rather significant policy divergences. McCain opens up with Hagel over his defection from McCain and the GOP in opposing the surge in Iraq. I once thought McCain may surprise us and end up voting in support of Hagel. His tone and the direction he has taken -- in which McCain felt betrayed by Hagel -- makes me think McCain is no longer a possible 'yes' vote.

McCain hammering Hagel, interrupting Hagel, demanding a yes or no response to his question on the Iraq surge. Hagel tells him that he will defer to history to answer that question -- and wanted to explain. McCain says "let the record show that Senator Hagel refused to answer the question." Hagel then explains that he stands by his view that the Iraq surge was the worst decision that the government has made since Vietnam.

McCain makes his vote subject to Hagel's view of the Iraq surge. Feisty moments. McCain clearly going to be a NO vote.

10:50 am. Senator Inhofe pressing Hagel on his nuclear views and his activities with "Global Zero or whatever that organization was," as expressed by Inhofe. Inhofe asked about Hagel's views about supporting the nuclear triad of US forces -- and Hagel said he agrees with Inhofe and that the Obama administration's policies are consistent with Inhofe. But Inhofe doesn't believe him.

Inhofe goes over the line and asks why the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supports Hagel's nomination. Wow. He's the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee asking a question that really ponders whether Hagel is a traitor to his country. Amazing.

10:41 am. In Q&A starting with Senator Carl Levin, Hagel says he supports the Pentagon command staff's concerns as well as those of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that a sequster would have highly negative impacts on the Pentagon and its security deliverables.

On Iran, Hagel said there has never been disagreement on the objective of keeping Iran away from a nuclear weapon, but rather differences on the efficacy of different approaches. In essence, Hagel opposes unilateral sanctions as ineffective -- though he admitted he had voted for them on occasion on a case by case basis.

Senator Chuck Hagel is now offering his opening statement before the Committee. He said his son wasn't there today because he said he was taking a test. Drawing some chuckles from even those Senators most opposed to him, Hagel said this fact still needed to be confirmed.

Here is Hagel's statement as prepared for delivery:

Chuck Hagel Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 31, 2013 As Prepared for Delivery Thank you Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to come before you today as the President's nominee to be Secretary of Defense.

I want to thank my friends Sam Nunn and John Warner for their support, encouragement, and friendship over many years. These two distinguished Americans represent what's best about American public service and responsible bipartisanship. They have embodied both in their careers and are models for each of us.

To my family, friends, and fellow veterans who are here this morning - and those who are not - thank you. A life is only as good as the family and friends you have and the people you surround yourself with.

I also want to thank my friend Leon Panetta for his tremendous service to our country over so many years. If I'm given the privilege of succeeding him, it will be a high honor.

Finally, I want to thank President Obama for his confidence and trust in me. I am humbled by the opportunity and possibility he has given me to serve our country once again.

I fully recognize the immense responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. I assured the President that if I am confirmed by the United States Senate, I will always do my best for our nation and for the men and women - and their families - who are called on to make the enormous sacrifices of military service. Their safety, success, and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions I make.

I also assured the President that I would always provide him with my most honest and informed advice. I make that same commitment to this Committee and to the Congress. If confirmed, I will reach out to the members of this Committee for advice and collaboration. It will be a partnership, because the national security challenges America faces require it.

Our nation's security is the highest priority of our leaders and our government. We cannot allow the work of confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage to partisanship on either side of the aisle, or by differences between the bodies represented in Articles I and II of our Constitution. The stakes are too high. Men and women of all political philosophies and parties fight and die for our country. As this Committee knows so well, protecting our national security or committing a nation to war can never become political litmus tests. I know Secretary Panetta has put a strong emphasis on reaching out to the Congress. I, like Leon, come from the Congress, and respect and understand this institution's indispensable role in setting policy and helping govern our country.

We are all products of the forces that shape us. For me, there has been nothing more important in my life - or a more defining influence on my life - than my family. Whether it was helping my mother raise four boys after my father - a World War II veteran - died suddenly at age 39 on Christmas Day, or serving side by side my brother Tom in Vietnam, or the wonderful miracle of my wife Lilibet and me being blessed with two beautiful children. That is who I am. We each bring to our responsibilities "frames of reference" formed by our life's experiences. They help instruct our judgments. We build out from those personal foundations by continually informing ourselves, listening, and learning.

Like each of you, I have a record. A record I am proud of, not because of any accomplishments I may have achieved, or an absence of mistakes, but rather because I've tried to build that record by living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as honestly as I knew how and with hard work. Under-pinning everything I've done in my life was the belief that we must always be striving to make our nation a better and more secure place for all of our people.

During the twelve years I had the privilege of serving the people of Nebraska in the United States Senate, I cast over 3,000 votes and hundreds of Committee votes. I've also given hundreds of interviews and speeches, and written a book. So, as you all know, I am on the record on many issues.

But no one individual vote, quote, or statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record. My overall worldview has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world; that we must lead the international community to confront threats and challenges together; and that we must use all tools of American power to protect our citizens and our interests. I believe, and always have, that America must engage - not retreat - in the world. My record is consistent on these points.

It's clear that we are living at a defining time. Our nation is emerging from over a decade of war. We have brought our men and women in uniform home from Iraq, and have started to bring them home from Afghanistan.

That does not mean the threats we face and will continue to face are any less dangerous or complicated. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Recent events in Mali and Algeria remind us of this reality. Twenty first century complexities, technologies, economies, and threats are bringing the seven billion global citizens closer together. And as our planet adds another two billion people over the next 25 years, the dangers, complications, and human demands will not be lessened, but rather heightened.

Despite these challenges, I believe we also have historic opportunities to help build a safer, more prosperous, more secure, more hopeful and just world than at maybe any time in history. Yes, the curse of intolerance, hatred, and danger exists around the world, and we must continue to be clear-eyed about this danger - and we will be. We will not hesitate to use the full force of the United States military in defense of our security. But we must also be smart, and more importantly wise, in how we employ all of our nation's great power.

America's continued leadership and strength at home and abroad will be critically important for our country and the world. While we will not hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary, it is essential that we work closely with our allies and partners to enhance America's influence and security - as well as global security. If confirmed, I will continue to build on the efforts of this administration and of former Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, and Secretary Clinton to strengthen our alliances and partnerships around the world. I will also look forward to working with my former Senate colleague and friend, John Kerry, in this effort.

As I told the President, I am committed to his positions on all issues of national security, specifically decisions that the Department of Defense is in the process of implementing. This includes the Defense Strategic Guidance the President outlined in January 2012. Allow me to briefly address a few of those specific issues now.

First, we have a plan in place to transition out of Afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home, and end the war there - which has been the longest war in America's history. As you know, discussions are ongoing about what the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will look like after 2014. The President has made clear - and I agree - that there should be only two functions for U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan after 2014: counterterrorism - particularly to target al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising Afghan forces. It's time we forge a new partnership with Afghanistan, with its government and, importantly, with its people.

Second, as Secretary of Defense I will ensure we stay vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as they try to expand their affiliates around the world, in places like Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa. At the Pentagon, that means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in that fight, such as special operations forces and new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies. And it will mean working hand-in-hand with our partners across the national security and intelligence communities, to confront these and other threats, especially the emerging threat of cyber warfare.

Third, as I have made clear, I am fully committed to the President's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and - as I've said in the past - all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. My policy is one of prevention, and not one of containment - and the President has made clear that is the policy of our government. As Secretary of Defense, I will make sure the Department is prepared for any contingency. I will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge in the region and will continue to support systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives from terrorist rocket attacks.

Fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed stockpiles and launchers consistent with the New START Treaty, I am committed to maintaining a modern, strong, safe, ready, and effective nuclear arsenal. America's nuclear deterrent over the last 65 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a World War III. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal.

As we emerge from this decade of war, we also must broaden our nation's focus overseas as we look at future threats and challenges. As this Committee knows, that's why DoD is rebalancing its resources towards the Asia-Pacific region. We are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with traditional allies, especially Japan, South Korea, and Australia; to continue to deter and defend against provocations from states like North Korea, as well as non-state actors; and to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide disaster relief, fight piracy, and ensure maritime security.

I will continue this rebalancing, even as we continue to work closely with our longtime NATO allies and friends, and with allies and partners in other regions. At the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, where we have clear national interests. Rather, it is a recognition that the United States has been and always will be a Pacific power, and the Asia-Pacific is an increasingly vital part of the globe for America's security and economy. That's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the coming years.

Doing all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. I have made it clear I share Leon Panetta's and our service chiefs' serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. And as someone who has run businesses, I know the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the Pentagon's resources. If confirmed, I am committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar; to maintaining the strongest military in the world; and to working with Congress to ensure the Department has the resources it needs - and that the disposition of those resources is accountable.

Even as we deal with difficult budget decisions, I will never break America's commitment to our troops, our veterans, and our military families. We will continue to invest in the well-being of our all-volunteer force. And, working with the VA and other institutions, we will make sure our troops and their families get the health care, job opportunities, and education they have earned and deserve - just as I did when I co-authored the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill with Senators Jim Webb, John Warner, and Frank Lautenberg. This includes focusing on the mental health of our fighting force, because no one who volunteers to fight and die for our country should feel like they have nowhere to turn.

In my twelve years in the Senate, my one guiding principle on every national security decision I made and every vote I cast was always this: Is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices we ask them to make? That same question will guide me if I am confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Our men and women in uniform and their families must never doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. I believe my record of leadership on veterans issues over the years - going back to my service in the Veterans Administration under President Reagan - demonstrates my rock-solid commitment to our veterans and their families.

We must always take care of our people. That's why I will work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this country has the same rights and opportunities. As I've discussed with many of you in our meetings, I am fully committed to implementing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members. I will work with the service chiefs as we officially open combat positions to women, a decision that I strongly support. And I will continue the important work that Leon Panetta has done to combat sexual assault in the military. Maintaining the health and well-being of those who serve is critical to maintaining a strong and capable military, because an institution's people must always come first.

As we look ahead to the coming years, we have an extraordinary opportunity now to define what's next for America's military and our country. It is incumbent upon all of us to make decisions that will ensure our nation is prepared to confront any threat we may face, protect our citizens, and remain the greatest force for good in the world.

If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, it will be my great honor - working with the President, this Committee, the Congress, and our military - to ensure our policies are worthy of the service and sacrifice of America's finest men and women. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

# # #

Senator John Warner tells Senate Armed Services Committee members that Chuck Hagel will hit head on all of the concerns and issues raised by the Members of the Committee -- and that a fair discussion of real issues can be had so that decisions can be made on their merits.

Senators Mark Udall, Shaheen, Manchin, Donnelly, Kane, King, Nelson, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, Fischer, Ayotte, Lee listening carefully to John Warner.

Those looking at iPhones and blackberries, or otherwise distracted, while John Warner speaks are: Senators Gilibrand, Kay Hagan, (Hirono just stepped out), McAskill, Inhofe, McCain, Wicker, Lindsey Graham, Blunt, and Cruz.

Two former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- San Nunn and John Warner -- are sitting aside Chuck Hagel and will introduce him to the members of the committee. Formidable line up.

Hagel is now in the hearing room, listening to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. We just received a copy of Ranking Member Senator Jim Inhofe's roster of concerns and expression of opposition to Hagel's confirmation.

Of note are Inhofe's opposition to a vote until Hagel provides copies of eight speeches for which he received honoraria -- noting that Senator Hagel had provided copies of only four speeches.

Inhofe will also say: "Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date demonstrates he will be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of President Obama's first term.

Finally, an honest statement that most of this turbulence is about President Obama's policies.
 

Former Senator Max Cleland here. The first protestor just raised a poster asking Hagel to deliver on LGBT commitments if confirmed as Secretary of Defense (pic can be seen at my @SCClemons Twitter feed).

Senator Carl Levin has just opened the hearing -- paying tribute to former ranking member John McCain and welcoming as new Ranking Member Jim Inhofe, who has already communicated his opposition to Senator Hagel's confirmation -- 'before' these hearings. Interesting stewardship model given his new role here.

The crowd is building. Now seated next to Eli Lake, senior national security correspondent for Newsweek/Daily Beast, who has been an intrepid reporter on the Hagel hearings. 

Between us we could do a Showtime mini-series about the politics surrounding the Chuck Hagel nomination.

The hearing room is now super-packed.  Standing room only does not describe it.  Outserve/SLDN, an LGBT advocacy shop for those serving in or who have previously served in the military, is here in force.  Also, the Center for American Freedom has distributed a two-pager on why Hagel must be the worst choice for Defense Secretary ever.  Last item on their list:  Hagel wants to lift the embargo against Cuba. 

In my view, ending the self-defeating, anachronistic, failed embargo against Cuba is one of the best things the Obama administration could do.  But wait, I remember now Senator Jeff Flake largely saying the same thing as Hagel.  Also Richard Lugar, Kit Bond, and others.  

More soon.



8:53 am.  This morning I'm up in SD-G50, which means basement of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, as the media and other notables assemble for the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination to serve as the next Secretary of Defense.

There is a huge line outside -- and clearly not enough room in here for all of the people who will want to get in. 

For those following, here is a pdf of the Chuck Hagel Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee (as prepared for delivery).

Things start up formally in 30 minutes.

Tomorrow morning at 9:30, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on former Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination by the president to be the next secretary of Defense.

A sizable roster of policy questions were submitted to Hagel to assess his views on everything from China to Iran to nuclear weapons to thoughts on energy management and security.

Here is the pdf of Hagel's responses. Warning. It runs 112 pages long.

Critics charge that Chuck Hagel went on crusade in 1980s to close a USO mission in Israel -- but Israelis involved then say the potential secretary of defense nominee actually saved the operation. 

Is the White House side-stepping the Senate confirmation process in favor of letting a messy, sometimes ugly popularity contest drive its potential nominations?

Something rare just happened.  Rather than me having to dog various of the media handlers or key policy hands at the National Security Council or White House on whether Chuck Hagel is on or off the SecDef list, I just got a phone call from a senior Executive Branch person in the know who said something along the lines that the media are hyperventilating this thing into the wrong direction and that the process of considering nominees is proceeding in a way completely different than the media are telling it.  This person said Hagel is very much on the list.

I asked if Hagel had the edge in the process -- and got nothing more than the above. I was told that there were concerns about "stature" and "command capabilities" of the other publicly mentioned possibilities.

But let's be blunt about something. I can't offer my source's name though can attest to the individual's proximity to some of the nominee discussions. Am I being spun?  Perhaps. The fact is that I did not solicit this particular call and this person has never tilted me wrong before. If Ashton Carter, Jack Reed, Colin Powell, or Michele Flournoy end up standing next to the president introduced as his next SecDef nominee, is the information I just received wrong?  Not necessarily. This is a process where shadows and nuance are the rule.

What has happened in this mess of leaked potential nominees to jobs is that the political advisers around the president are able to take the temperature of various institutions' love or hate of their candidates. I mention institutions rather that citizens because this is entirely an inside-the-Beltway sport. How much will Bill Kristol, the Republican Jewish Coalition and others put into the kitty to fight Hagel? How much is the president willing to invest -- even before a potential nomination reaches the kicking the tires phase?

It's fascinating to watch -- even if the anguish of pundits and media do reach the flamboyance of a Quentin Tarantino movie. The not-yet-nominated candidate for a position, in cases like Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel, are also barred by instruction and convention from defending themselves or saying much in public. This reminds me of a hilarious, anonymously written item run by The Washington Note titled, "To All Those Waiting for the Obama Team Phone Call."  The writer eventually did get quite a cool political appointment in the Obama administration -- and survived the torturous process.

But what is weird about this process is that it starts with a couple of leaks and good journalism -- in the Hagel case with The Cable's Josh Rogin breaking the news that Chuck Hagel was being vetted for some job. And then on December 13th, Bloomberg's Hans Nichols broke the news that Hagel was President Obama's lead candidate for SecDef.

Then the neoconservative machinery cranked up -- with blasts from Bill Kristol with some key assists from Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer. Hagel's terrible commentary 14 years ago about the then-nomination process of out and proud James Hormel as America's first gay ambassador popped up to generate a wave of concern in the progressive community, most particularly from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Hagel apologized for those remarks. Hormel graciously and emphatically embraced Hagel's apology -- and I wrote what I know and shared what I had written years ago about Hagel's pro-LGBT rights stand. 

The Hagel nomination's seeming complexity -- hyped up by leading advocates of policies that "help Israel so much that it hurts," a term once shared with me by Ambassador and then Israeli Foreign Ministry Deputy Spokesman Gideon Meir about some the activities of diaspora support groups like AIPAC -- then began to lead political pundits to declare the Hagel nomination "toast", as Politico's Mike Allen did. U.S.-Israel negotiator Aaron David Miller arguing Hagel should not be toast. Others like MSNBC's Chris Matthews have said that the Hagel bubble has popped. 

Then Tom Friedman put wind in the sails of the Hagel nomination by saying that he deserved to run the Department of Defense and the President should choose him. Friedman writes for the world -- but also has a strong readership among the same people who vote for Chuck Schumer -- and the Schumer-Tom Friedman divide is key here. Ultimately, Friedman beats Schumer as his constituency is larger, and Friedman has more impact on the perception of Obama's successes and victories.  Senator Schumer will ultimately agree to disagree with a Presidential pick of Hagel and deal well with the White House on other fronts. And even then, as Chuck Hagel voted for John Bolton at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it's not so hard to imagine Schumer ultimately voting in favor of Hagel.

National Journal's Michael Hirsh read the tea leaves in a comment he got from the White House and reported that the Obama team was going wobbly on Hagel because of the line, "we are considering other candidates."  To my friend and colleague Hirsh this sounded like a comment he had received during the Susan Rice imbroglio in which an official had planted with him something along the lines that "the President was vexed between Susan Rice and John Kerry for the Secretary of State position."  To Hirsh, this seemed like a signal to Rice that the President wanted her to stand down.

The bottom line is that for those, even myself, who have argued that Hagel's nomination was still kicking, or withering, assumptions are being made about what would seem logical, what would a president faced with a neocon onslaught, lack of unanimity in the Senate, and the potential for yet another fight with the GOP (well, mostly the GOP) do when the Obama team may have thought this would be a smoother ride.

So, many are now thinking that of the two other leading candidates, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Michele Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and is the former president of the Center for a New American Security, Flournoy will get the nod. 

I listened to MSNBC commentator Krystal Ball chat with show anchor Karen Finney say that it would be awesome to have Flournoy because she was a mom and had kids -- and this would be a great signal to the country to have a woman in that key position. One part of me agrees that the appointment of Flournoy would break another glass ceiling for women, but there will be questions about both of these candidate's capabilities and perspectives as well that have not been scrutinized.

What are their views on Iran? Should we have bombed yesterday? On the Bob Gates view that anyone who would commit U.S. forces to large ground wars and occupations should have his or her head examined? On the privatization of the U.S. military so that despite spending gobs more money, the number of military personnel in uniform has declined while the contractor surge has grown unabated? How does one restructure the military in an age of budget austerity? Don Rumsfeld thought through some of this in his pre-9/11 tenure. What are their views?

Senator Jack Reed and former secretary of State Colin Powell have both been mentioned as well -- but both seem equally, personally committed to keeping their names off the list of likely choices.

What I heard from my executive branch source made a lot of sense to me today. That many in the punditocracy and D.C.'s strategic class are hyperventilating about these candidates and what we think Obama will do and won't do with scant evidence or commentary from the president or his team. The fact is that the White House has been highly cryptic at best about who is on the list and how they are proceeding.

If the White House does not go with Hagel, the Obama team has a problem as they will be appearing to reject a two-time Purple Heart recipient who was nearly a candidate for president of the United States, who served as a sergeant in Vietnam, and who believes that the Pentagon must be reshaped and remodeled to deliver security to the American public on leaner budgets. Hagel is a defense cuts guy -- and the person in this job will be spending 90 percent of his time not dealing with Israelis or other governments but wrestling with generals about how to rebalance America's national security priorities from low-return wars in the Middle East and South Asia to higher-return concerns in Asia. And they'd be conceding to a lot of folks whom the president just wiped the floor with in the last election.

Michael Hirsh has also raised the obvious but neglected point that Hagel is one who got the wars right -- in that they were bad wars -- and broke ranks with his party and pal John McCain in favor of the broader American national interest. Hirsh says he should not be punished for that -- but should be rewarded.

So, if the source I spoke to is right and the media discussion has distorted what is fantasy and fact and is now quite distant from what the real process is with President Obama and Chuck Hagel, all the better. 

We are still reading tea leaves in this appointment process -- which should be more transparent, managed in the halls of Congress in a legally scripted process, and less of a nightmare for the potential nominee.

Zalmay Khalilzad says Chuck Hagel has "the courage of his convictions" and "deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense."

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Former George W. Bush administration US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan and the United Nations -- as well as former National Security Council Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs -- Zalmay Khalilzad shared with me some thoughts on the possible nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Khalilzad enjoys a distinguished record in national security circles, having also served as a long time senior analyst at the RAND Corporation.  He is widely considered to be a leading neoconservative thinker and policy practitioner and was an active supporter of the Bill Kristol/Robert Kagan-led Project for a New American Century, which provided the primary foundation for foreign policy-oriented neoconservatives during the Clinton era.

What follows are Ambassador Khalilzad's responses to questions I posed regarding Hagel.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

Khalilzad:  He is a patriot who has fought for his country. He is courageous and is not afraid to express his views--when when those views are not popular. I have not always agreed with Chuck Hagel's views. But I have always admired him for having the courage of his convictions.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel. Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests. Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying? Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel? Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

Khalilzad:  I have not heard him say anything that would indicate that he is an enemy of Israel.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families. Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying? Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?

Khalilzad:  He has apologized for his statement of some 14 years ago and has clarified his current position on this sensitive and important issue. That was a different era; the country as a whole has undergone enormous change on this matter, and so has he, it seems.

Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

Khalilzad:  He deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Allies are pushing back at the character critique leveled at the former senator from Nebraska. Below is a Letter to the Editor that rain in Washington Post yesterday, the 25th of December.  While this letter criticizes the Post for this article drawing a connection between Hagel's Vietnam experiences and his foreign policy views and defends Hagel's character, the letter also notably implies that the White House is too tolerant of the attacks on potential Cabinet nominees.

Regarding the Dec. 21 front-page article "Vietnam scars still show in Hagel's policies": We strongly object, as a matter of substance and as a matter of principle, to the attacks on the character of former senator Chuck Hagel.

Mr. Hagel is a man of unshakable integrity and wisdom who has served his country in the most distinguished manner in peace and war. He is a rare example of a public servant willing to rise above partisan politics to advance the interests of the United States and its friends and allies. Moreover, it is damaging to the quality of our civic discourse for prospective Cabinet nominees to be subjected to such vicious attacks on their character before an official nomination.

This type of behavior will only discourage future prospective nominees from public service when our country badly needs quality leadership in government.

James L. Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci

The writers are former U.S. national security advisers.

What could really change the game for the White House choice of Leon Panetta's successor as Secretary of Defense? This article by Tom Friedman at the New York Times:  today, "Give Chuck a Chance."  I recommend a full read.

It makes it clear that attempts by the neoconservative community to portray monolithic Jewish-American opposition to Chuck Hagel's nomination just shattered.

As part of the roundup of perspectives on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense, I have received the responses noted below. Here at The Atlantic is an earlier installment of views that included David Frum, Bing West, Ari Melber, Robert Dreyfuss, Hattie Babbitt, Ambassador James Hormel, Adam Garfinkle, and Leslie Gelb.

This installment includes questions I posed to Foreign Policy CEO David Rothkopf, Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Fellow Dan Glickman, Century Foundation Senior Fellow Jeffrey Laurenti, Harvard Kennedy School International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt, Cato Institute EVP David Boaz, former National Intelligence Council Chairman and former State Department Intel boss Thomas Fingar, and former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & South Asia and Georgetown University Visiting Professor Paul Pillar. Their responses follow beneath each question.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

My sense is that Hagel brings many strengths to the job of Secretary of Defense.  He is a thoughtful student of U.S. national security policy who, unlike many, is not easily categorized on a partisan or ideological basis.  In this respect, he is precisely the kind of independent thinker we need.  He also has proven to have the courage of his convictions, speaking his mind...as he did during the Iraq war...despite strong pressures against him.  This is precisely the kind of advisor any president needs.

Dan Glickman, former Member of Congress (R-KS); former Chairman, House Select Committee on Intelligence; former President, Motion Picture Association; Former US Secretary of Agriculture; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center.

I am not familiar enough with your questions to answer them specifically, but I have known Chuck from my days in Congress as his Kansas neighbor and during my time as USDA Secretary. I think Chuck has good midwestern values and a lot of common sense. I have always found him to be smart, decent, enthusiastic and desirous of America to be actively engaged in the world. I think would be a fair and thoughtful Secretary, if he is the President's choice. And his Vietnam combat service would send positive signals to the nation's military.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Strengths:  As a Republican former senator, he is able to bridge the polarization gap between a left-of-center Democratic administration and a strongly pro-military right-of-center Republican party in the Congress.  As a Vietnam war veteran (on the ground, not in the air!) he can speak to the citizenry that honors the shrinking minority of Americans who have actually been called to combat--and speak to them about the madness and futility of war fever that erupts like hot flashes in Washington from time to time.  He also has the bona fides from that experience for dealing with the military brass with credibility and independence.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

My best responses to this question are already posted on my blog at "Five Reasons Obama Should Pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef" and "The Art of the Smear."

I would only add that if Obama caves on this one, it will teach another generation of foreign policy experts that honest discourse about Israel is not possible.  And as Adam Garfinkle noted in The American Interest, this is likely to fuel great resentment and a nasty backlash down the road.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As my colleague Chris Preble wrote, Hagel's appointment "should be welcomed by anyone frustrated by years of war and foreign meddling, and out-of-control spending at the Pentagon. Which is to say, nearly everyone."

I think a senator who voted for the Iraq war and came to regret it probably reflects where a lot of the country is today. He's a combat veteran, a two-term senator, and a thoughtful participant in discussions of international issues for almost two decades. Also, he's a Republican. Indeed a conservative Republican. A small band of neoconservatives are trying to persuade Republicans not to support their former colleague. But to Republicans and independents across the country, he's a Republican senator. If Obama appoints Hagel Secretary of Defense, he will look impressively bipartisan. To most Americans, it will look like "a government of national unity" formed to deal with the aftermath of two wars.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Strengths include the fact that he served in the military--a long time ago and for only a short time.  The former attribute gives him knowledge about how a military organization works (his experience was in a pretty dysfunctional period); the latter gives him an "outsider's perspective."  He is obviously a smart guy willing to ask hard questions--something the next SECDEF will have to do in response to pleas from the services and the defense industry for "more" and "better" toys to deal with imagined enemies.

His congressional experience will help him--and DOD--to deal with strong actors and interests on the Hill who will resist necessary efforts to shrink the military, limit procurement of equipment, and close redundant facilities.  I think highly of Hagel's integrity, in part because of the position he took after Iraq began to go south in a big way.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel has distinguished himself as a straightforward and independent thinker, including especially on difficult Middle Eastern issues and issues involving defense spending.  These are exactly the qualities that are most needed today in the highest circles in the making of U.S. foreign and security policy.

As the first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense, he would bring to the job a valuable first-hand perspective on what it means to apply military force, and especially to apply it with American blood and treasure.  Perhaps a weakness is having less experience in bureaucratic management than some others might have--although he was successful in private business before entering government and was deputy head of the Veterans Administration.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel.  Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests.  Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?  Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

I believe the objections to Hagel based on his Israel positions should have no impact on how the President weighs his candidacy.  In the first instance they have been portrayed incorrectly by some as being anti-Israel when his view are far more nuanced and balanced than that.  Secondly, his actual views are the kind of pragmatic, ideology-free perspective that will be needed in the context of the new Middle East.  Thirdly, the President sets US policy for his team not the other way around.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?   No. Indeed, they seem to track closely with what most American professional military officers believe about the US-Israel relationship.

Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Preposterous

Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?    They appear to be consistent with what most American Middle-East policy mavens believe: a secure Israel and a secure Palestine living side-by-side will be essential for peace and security in a much roiled region.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

Hagel is certainly not an "enemy of Israel."  He understands that allies don't have to agree on everything, and that friendship sometimes means telling a friend what they need to hear.  He also understands that war with Iran is not a good idea, just as many Israeli national security experts do.   He is more of a friend to Israel than any of his critics.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Of course he's not an enemy of Israel. Are we really supposed to believe that he served two Senate terms from Nebraska and no one noticed he was an enemy of Israel? Hagel seems to understand that U.S. foreign policy must serve the interests of the United States, and that that probably means less promiscuous intervention. I think most Americans would welcome that approach. In addition, of course, he's going to serve the president and his policies.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Hagel is not anti-Israel.  That is a canard that should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant.  The position in question is the US Secretary of Defense.  Whoever holds the position will shape and implement US policy but will not do so independently.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel's views on these issues are refreshingly constructive and realistic.  It is absurd to label him as an enemy of Israel.  His positions on issues related to Israel are far more in the interests of the State of Israel than are the positions of his principal accusers.

The accusers confuse the interests of Israel with the wishes of the current right-wing Israeli government--which represent something very different and which are undermining the long-term prospects of a strong, democratic, Jewish state living at peace with its neighbors and with the international community.  Even without that confusion about Israeli interests, Americans should have a secretary of defense who puts U.S. interests above those of any foreign government.

It is absolutely astonishing that remarks by Senator Hagel indicating that he prioritizes U.S. interests in exactly that way are somehow held as a mark against him.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Ambassador James Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families.  Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying?  Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy
I personally am offended by Hagel's comments regarding Hormel.  I think they showed an unacceptable degree of prejudice.  But he has apologized for them and they were quite some time ago and therefore, if leading members of the LGBT community are willing to support his candidacy, I will defer to them on this.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Views on gays in the military or in the front lines of public service from the mid-1990s are no more disqualifying than a political figure's fervent opposition to legal access to abortion in the mid-1960s. Even Strom Thurmond ended up hiring black legislative aides -- and he had made a career of racism in politics; and in Hagel's case, battling gay equality was never central to his political identity. When cultural revolutions occur, people who were slow to embrace them at the start, but who finally catch on, are fully capable of adapting to the post-revolutionary landscape.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

I disagree vehemently with Hagel's remarks from a decade and a half ago.  They might be disqualifying if he still held them, but that does not seem to be the case.  The obvious thing to do is ask him.  If he is nominated, the Senators charged with approving the nomination should ask him too, and judge his answers.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Attitudes toward gay rights have changed a lot since 1998, which was just two years after 32 Democratic senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton boasted in his reelection campaign about signing it. Hagel says his own views have changed, and I take him at his word. Besides, he has received absolution from HRC -- what more can one ask?

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I personally think the treatment of Hormel was despicable and Hagel's behavior was unworthy of the man and his position, but one must recognize that politicians reflect and often pander to the prejudices of their constituents and that public attitudes were very different 14 years ago than they are today.  The country has moved far in a positive direction, on gender and many other issues.  So have Hagel and many other politicians.  He has apologized and the apology has been accepted.  I cannot imagine that he (or an other candidate for SECDEF) would, if confirmed, attempt to turn back the clock on a social issue that is so clearly going in the other direction.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

On issues of sexual preference the entire country has moved very far in the last 14 years.  Hagel has apologized, Hormel has accepted the apology, and this issue can be laid to rest.  It probably would be barely a blip in the current discourse were it not for the Israel-related drivers of the discourse.

Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

Personally, I think the president would be better off selecting Michele Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense.  She, in her work as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, her leadership at CNAS, and her prior work in the Defense Department during the Clinton Administration has proven herself to be an innovative thinker, a genuine student of strategy, tactics and emerging trends in international defense and a leader in the national security community.

She represents fresh perspectives, the voice of a rising generation of leaders and is well placed to help lead the transformation that our defense establishment must go through over the next decade.  Hagel would be an excellent candidate and a good Secretary of Defense.  She would, I think, be a better one.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

The next four years will be crucial for adapting the US military force structure to the profoundly changed international relations of the 21st century.  Hagel is one of the rare individuals who can navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of congressional passions, budgetary realities, and global commitments.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

No matter what he does in terms of overall Middle East policy, the Hagel nomination gives Barack Obama an opportunity to strike a blow for a more open discourse on these important issues.  If he nominates Hagel, he will demonstrate that reasonable people can disagree about certain aspects of U.S. Middle East policy, and that U.S. policymakers do not have to slavishly kowtow to AIPAC's hardline.

If Obama caves to the Israel lobby yet again, he will ensure the failure of his efforts to restore the U.S. position in the region and to prevent Israel from becoming an apartheid state.   And his own legacy will be tarnished, perhaps irretrievably.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As Chris Preble says, I hope "that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions." And maybe even that, as a midwestern conservative, he'll advise against military actions undertaken without congressional authorization, such as President Obama's intervention in Libya.

We need to finish getting out of two decade-long wars, avoid new ones, and chart a foreign policy for a changed world. I hope that Hagel could help move the administration and the country in the direction of prudent and realistic policies, and sensible reductions in our vastly increased military budget.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I am struck by the criticism that has not appeared, or at least not in places that I have seen.  For example, no one is criticizing him for what I would consider more serious problems such as being in the pocket of particular defense contractors, having a jingoistic attitude on foreign policy issues and determination to use the US military as a global police force or quasi-imperial tool of American hegemony.

Hagel's balanced, reasoned approach and integrity are his strong suits and no one has challenged them in a convincing way.  Nor has anyone tried, except with the charge of being anti-Israel (the most important requirement for a SECDEF is that he/she be pro-American) and the charge of homophobia.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Look, we all know perfectly well what this furor is about.  It is another instance of a springing into action of elements that are so determined to prevent any significant questioning of destructive Israeli policies, or of U.S. tolerance of those policies, that they will use whatever means necessary--including, as in this case, the slandering of a distinguished public figure--to try to keep such questioning from being uttered by anyone in high public office and to keep from office those who look like they may actually raise such questions.

With Hagel there is the added dimension--involving some of the same elements--that he is seen as a turncoat for acknowledging that the Iraq War was a disastrous mistake and for endorsing Obama.  Otherwise this is a replay of what was done a few years ago to Chas Freeman.  Given the salience of the campaign against Hagel, as I have observed, there is now more at stake than just who will head the Department of Defense for the next four years.  The issue is one of whether this kind of intimidation and the scurrilous tactics that go along with it will be allowed to prevail.

I have gathered some more views on Chuck Hagel's potential -- and challenged -- nomination to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Politico's Mike Allen is calling the nomination "toast" after Senator Chuck Schumer refused to say he would vote in favor of him. Remember that Senator Schumer -- who has many views of which I'm supportive -- nonetheless said in a Senate Democratic Caucus on one occasion, "a vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel." Bolton never got his confirmation vote, though he did serve as a recess-appointed Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations.

But while Schumer hasn't said this, one can easily imagine him informally telegraphing to his colleagues that "a vote for Hagel is a vote against Israel."

Both are untrue of course. Whether Bolton had been confirmed or not as US Ambassador, he like other US Ambassadors is a steadfast defender of the US-Israel alliance. Chuck Hagel too would be a steadfast defender of an alliance that matters. The dividing line is whether one starts from the prism of U.S. security interests -- or starts with the Israel portal instead, or sees no line at all between them. No differences. 

In my view, Hagel is one of the smartest, most experienced strategists around today -- true to the strategic needs of a country in a fragile time.  He also has real combat experience under his belt -- having returned a sergeant from Vietnam 44 years ago this month.

Here are some other views that I have pulled together:

James C. Hormel, former US Ambassador to Luxembourg, challenged by Hagel in 1998 as being an inappropriate representative of the US because he was "aggressively homosexual", writes at his Facebook page:

Senator Hagel's apology is significant -- I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything.  While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal -- they are a clear apology. 

Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted.  Perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too.  His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. 

Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families.  If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, i would support his nomination.

Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, former international affairs columnist for the New York Times, and columnist at Newsweek/DailyBeast sent this comment to me:

I am strongly supportive of Chuck Hagel for SecDef, and I strongly back him despite my disagreement with him on a number of issues. I'm for him because he's been right about some of the most critical issues of our time like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the need to talk to and negotiate with adversaries (though again, I differ with him about Hamas).

He's also dead right about the pentagon budget being bloated. in the foreign policy community, these calls take great courage. to me, we need someone who can say hard truths to power at the National Security Council.

David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and contributing editor at Newsweek/DailyBeast:

What I find most dismaying about the debate over Senator Hagel is the utter absence from the public discussion of any mention of the single most important issue facing the next secretary of defense: how to preside over what will likely be the steepest military build-down since the 1970s with minimum harm to military capabilities.

There's nothing in the Hagel record to indicate that he brings any relevant experience or skills to this problem. I find it baffling that President Obama would short-list him for the defense position. I'd feel the same way if Chuck Hagel were B'nai Brith's man of the year.

Senator Hagel's supporters offer a case in his favor that would superbly qualify him as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Nixon administration. But that's not the job we're talking about.

Robert Dreyfuss, correspondent for The Nation, writes:

It's a sad commentary on both Barack Obama and the state of Democratic Party politics and its national security wing that the president, once again, is considering naming another Republican as secretary of defense. You'll recall that in 2009, Obama let Robert Gates, the Republican who served George W. Bush, stay on at the Department of Defense. Not that Gates was a neocon--no, far from it. But he was certainly drawn from the center-hawkish part of the American national security establishment, whose Democratic ranks include such execrable luminaries as Sam Nunn and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This time, it's Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican--who, 'tis true, might be flirting with becoming a Democrat, since he seems to think that the GOP has moved so far right that he can't even see its outer edges from Nebraska, his home state. It would be nice if Obama could find a liberal Democrat to run the Pentagon, someone who'd oversee the massive cuts in military outlays that are long past due, and who'd shut down the infatuation with the Special Forces, the drones and the "pivot" to the Pacific and East Asia.

But no, it's Hagel, it appears--someone whose decided tilt against Israel and its omnipresent allies in the Israel lobby (or, as Hagel calls it, the "Jewish lobby") is a strong point in his favor, especially if the United States is to avoid going to war against Iran in Obama's second term.

In any case, the Israel lobby--which, naturally, doesn't exist, and certainly, if it existed, would not call itself the Jewish lobby--is mobilizing all neoconservative hands on deck to stop Obama from picking Hagel.

On those grounds alone, I'm for Hagel.

Harriet "Hattie" Babbitt, former Deputy Administrator of USAID and Vice Chair, World Resources Institute wrote this:

Chuck Hagel's evolution on LGBT issues is a thing to be celebrated, not seen as a disqualification.  A failure to evolve would be a disqualification.
 
He should consider a  statement along the lines of, "Gay men and women in our military have proved themselves to be patriots and important members of our military.  As the recent examinations of their contributions have shown, a policy of exclusion would harm the combat readiness and the security of the United States. As Secretary of Defense, I would welcome their participation at every level of the armed forces."

Bing West, former Asst. Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and military author, writes in:

Hagel is overtly seeking the post. The Pentagon faces unremitting crises overseas and steep budgetary cuts.  The Pentagon needs a secretary who reluctantly accepts the position for the greater good, not for his own ego.

Adam Garfinkle, executive editor of The American Interest writes at his excellent blog, The Middle East and Beyond:

So, I am given to understand that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, which more or less boils down to its national director Abe Foxman's personal view of the planet from his Manhattan bubble, is not thrilled with the prospective (not even real yet) nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. According to Foxman, Hagel is not pro-Israel or anti-Iran enough for the job. Foxman has accused Hagel of invoking stereotypes that suggest not just anti-Israel attitudes but even anti-Semitism. He used the record of an interview Hagel gave to Aaron David Miller a few years back (more about that anon) when he was writing The Much Too Promised Land (2008) to support his accusation.

It's sort of ironic that an organization with the phrase "anti-defamation" in its own name should resort to defaming others. Well, maybe "ironic" isn't quite the right word; a few others also come to mind. But defamation it is, because the idea that Chuck Hagel is either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic is risible. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Foxman doesn't understand how much damage he does by tossing around such innuendo. It's even clearer that he doesn't want my advice. (I met him years ago within the confines of a closed meeting, but that's another story.) The damage done, and how it is done, is not clear to everybody, however--hence this note.

As it happens, Senator Hagel is in very good company as one of Mr. Foxman's targets. Another of those targets has been none other than Harry Truman.

Ari Melber, a contributor to MSNBC and contributing editor at The Nation, writes in an email:

No matter who wins the election, it seems like Republicans are always on the short list to run the Pentagon. If a policymaker with Hagel's exact background had a "D" next to his (or her) name, can anyone imagine that person even being considered for this job? 

I've reached out to a wide range of policy experts, pundits, and government officials (current and former) to share their thoughts on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. I should note that my Atlantic Media colleague Michael Hirsh has published a powerful piece at National Journal indicating that the White House is considering a number of candidates, and not just Hagel. 

I think that the discussion about Hagel is important and a learning moment about national security strategy, about the future of the Pentagon and the kinds of wars we have been engaged in abroad, and about the nomination process itself run out of the White House.

Tom Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has worked for both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and who has written some of the best accounts of America's command leadership in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars also serves as Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy. He also writes the blog, Best Defense. 

Ricks shared the following thoughts on Hagel in response to questions I posed:

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?
 
Ricks:  I cannot remember another modern administration that pulled almost all its top national security officials from the Congress. Right now we have former members of Congress as the secretary of defense, secretary of state, president, and vice president. They are advised by a national security advisor and deputy national security advisor with backgrounds as Capitol Hill staffers. And now the president is said to be considering replacing the current people at State and Defense with two other senators -- John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
 
Wait a minute. I thought diversity was a good thing! How about some people with backgrounds in academia (such as William Perry, who was a fine secretary of defense, or George Shultz), corporate America (such as David Packard), Wall Street (see Robert Lovett), the law (Edwin Stanton, Henry Stimson, Caspar Weinberger), career-track federal service (Robert Gates), or the military (George Marshall or Colin Powell)? How about people who have actually run something (members of Congress don't run anything but their offices).
 
President Obama's nightmare is said to be following in the tracks of LBJ -- that is, having a great domestic agenda undercut by backing into war. But he might pay more attention to JFK, who had a narrow team of advisors who thought they were smarter than everyone else. I think Obama is unnecessarily creating a vulnerability -- that is, why voluntarily wear blinders by getting people largely experienced in one relatively small aspect of the world? There is a reason that diversity is not just right but also smart practice. You'd think Obama would understand that.

It is interesting that if Hagel was nominated, President Obama would have three of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleagues close at hand -- Joe Biden, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Fascinating comment from Tom Ricks. More to come.