Hagel (R-NE) over the past several years, one common theme emerges: he has very little interest in defense policy, and a great deal of interest in international diplomacy.
Indeed, Hagel has spoken about military affairs so rarely--except to suggest the limits of U.S. military power--that it is unclear why he would be interested in the position of Secretary of Defense at all.
When Hagel does speak about U.S. defense policy, he seems out of his depth. He denounced the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq, for instance, and predicted its failure; ultimately, the surge proved critical in defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq and enabling the withdrawal for which President Barack Obama now takes political credit (though even that withdrawal proceeded under an agreement concluded by George W. Bush).
Moreover, Hagel’s distinguished service as an enlisted soldier does not seem to have led him to a broader interest in defense policy. He was once Deputy Director of the Veterans Administration, but resigned in 1982 over policy differences with the agency’s director (who had also been accused of corruption). More recently, he has co-chaired the President’s intelligence advisory board, but remains preoccupied with global affairs.
Were his own foreign policy views not so radical, and were the job not already taken, Hagel’s interests might make him a natural appointment as Secretary of State. In speech after speech over the years, Hagel lectures at length about the importance of multilateralism, the lack of U.S. leadership in major international institutions like the UN, and the need for America to reach out and to build international coalitions around common purposes.
Hagel’s weakness is that he sees diplomacy as a goal above all others
No comments:
Post a Comment