I don't have much to add to my earlier comments on the
manufactured controversy about Senator Chuck Hagel's fitness for the post of secretary of defense. But I do encourage
you to read the more recent comments by Andrew Sullivan, Robert Wright, Thomas
Friedman, and Bernard Avishai,
all of whom make clear that Hagel is perfectly
qualified for the position and that the people who are now trying to
smear him deserve the same contempt with which former Senator Joseph
McCarthy and other
narrow-minded bullies are now viewed.
Three aspects of the affair do merit brief comment, however. First, I'm
baffled by the Obama
administration's handling of the whole business. What in God's name were
they trying to accomplish by floating Hagel's name as the leading
candidate without either a formal nomination or
a vigorous defense? This lame-brained strategy
gave Hagel's enemies in the Israel lobby time to rally their forces and
turn what would have
been a routine appointment into a cause célèbre. If Obama backs down to
these smear artists
now, he'll confirm the widespread suspicion that he's got no backbone
and he'll lose clout both at home and abroad. If he
goes ahead with the appointment (as he should), he'll have to spend a
bit of
political capital and it will be a distraction from other pressing
issues. And all this could have been avoided had the
White House just kept quiet until it was ready to announce its nominee.
So
whatever the outcome, this episode hardly reflects well on the political
savvy
of Obama's inner circle.
Second, let's not lose sight of what is at stake here. Contrary to what
some suggest, the choice of SecDef isn't going to make any difference in
U.S. policy toward Israel or the
"peace process." Policy on those issues
will be set by the White House and Congress, with AIPAC et al. breathing
down
both their necks. The Israeli
government has no interest in a two-state solution, the Palestinians are
too
weak and divided to persuade Israel to rethink its present course, and
the
United States is incapable of mounting the sort of sustained pressure
that
might force both sides to compromise. Which means the two-state solution
is dead, and it won't matter whether
Hagel gets the nod or not. The $3-4 billion annual aid package won't be
affected, and I'll bet the United States continues to wield its U.N.
Security Council veto whenever it is asked.
This appointment could affect U.S. policy toward Iran, insofar as
Hagel's been skeptical about the wisdom of using military force in the
past. He's hardly a dove or an
appeaser, of course; he just recognizes that military force may not be a very
good way to deal with this problem. (Well, duh.) If Obama wants to
pursue diplomacy instead of preventive war -- and he should -- the combination of
Hagel at Defense and Kerry at State would give him two respected, articulate,
and persuasive voices to help him make that case. But if Obama were to decide that force was a good idea,
neither Kerry nor Hagel would stand in his way. So in terms of overall Middle East policy in
the next couple of years, this appointment may matter less than most people
think.
The real meaning of the Hagel affair is what it says
about the climate inside Washington. Simply put, the question is whether
supine and reflexive support for all
things Israeli remains a prerequisite for important policy positions
here in the
Land of the Free. Given America's track
record in the region in recent decades, you'd think a more open debate
on U.S.
policy would be just what the country needs, both for its own sake and
for Israel's. But because the case for the current "special
relationship" of unconditional support is so weak, the last thing
that hardliners like Bill Kristol or Elliot Abrams want is an open
debate on that subject. If Hagel gets appointed, it means other people
in Washington might realize they could say what they really think
without fear that their careers will be destroyed. And once that
happens, who knows where it might lead? It might even lead to a Middle
East policy that actually worked! We wouldn't want that now, would we?
At this point, if Obama picks someone other than Hagel, he
won't just be sticking a knife in the back of a dedicated public servant who
was wounded twice in the service of his country. Obama will also be sending an unmistakable
signal to future politicians, to young foreign policy wonks eager to rise in
the Establishment, and to anyone who might hope to get appointed to an important
position after 2016. He will be telling
them that they either have to remain completely silent on the subject of U.S. Middle
East policy or mouth whatever talking points they get from AIPAC,
the Weekly Standard, or the rest of
the Israel lobby, even though it is palpably obvious that the policies these
groups have defended for years have been a disaster for the United States and
Israel alike.
Instead of having a robust and open discourse about U.S.
Middle East policy inside official Washington, we will continue to have the
current stilted, one-sided, and deeply dishonest discussion of our actions and
interests in the region. And the long
list of U.S. failures -- the Oslo process, the settlements, the Iraq War, the rise of al Qaeda, etc. -- will
get longer still.
Over to you, Mr. President.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/26/whats_at_stake_in_the_hagel_affair#.UNuAbuybbPY.twitter
Petition
Wednesday 26 December 2012
What's at stake in the Hagel affair
Posted @ 17:12
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment