President Barack Obama’s choices for his national security team could help him consolidate some of the signature policies he developed in his first term, from his strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan to his dependence on drone strikes in the fight against al-Qaida. They will raise important questions about others, including his stated determination to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon by military means if necessary. Consequently, the confirmation hearings of Chuck Hagel for the Defense Department, John Brennan for CIA director and John F. Kerry for the State Department could provide a needed debate on the direction of U.S. national security policy — provided that senators can avoid distractions.
Chief among the distractions would be charges that Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, is hostile to Israel or even anti-Semitic. There is no serious evidence to support either allegation. Certainly Hagel’s views about the Middle East have often been outside the mainstream — except on the Iraq war, where he was anything but the savant that the White House describes. (Having voted to authorize the invasion in 2002, Hagel denounced the 2007 surge as “the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.”) But there’s no reason to believe Mr. Hagel would not, as Pentagon chief, continue the close military cooperation with Israel maintained by predecessors Leon Panetta and Robert Gates — who were also publicly critical of Israeli policies at times.
The real issues raised by Hagel’s nomination are his past support for a quick-as-possible withdrawal from Afghanistan, a further downsizing of what he described as a “bloated” Pentagon and his resistance to foreign interventions.
To a large degree, these views are shared by Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran, and coincide with Obama’s plans for his second term. So the Senate ought to explore and debate their potential benefits and risks. Can defense spending sustain large cuts beyond the more than a half-trillion dollars Obama sliced during his first term? Can Afghanistan avoid another civil war if U.S. troops are rapidly withdrawn in favor of a minimal stay-behind force — or none at all? Is it wise for the U.S. to remain passive as the civil war in Syria intensifies and threatens to spread to its neighbors?
Presidents are entitled to have their cabinet picks confirmed if they are qualified, and nothing disqualifying has emerged about these three. But their confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for the Senate to weigh Obama’s strategy. It’s certainly tempting to think that the United States can withdraw all but a few thousand troops from Afghanistan, stand on the sidelines in Syria, contain Iran with U.N.-approved sanctions, pivot U.S. resources to Asia and ward off any lingering terrorist menace with drones. Whether that is a realistic strategy for Obama’s second term ought to be the overriding subject of the upcoming hearings.
The Washington Post (Jan. 9)