Re: Hagel for SOD
On the foreign policy perspective, former Senator Hagel falls somewhere between a pacifist and Realist. I'm not concerned that he is not a neoconservative and would oppose intervention in civil conflicts such as Syria or other humanitarian military interventions. My concern is that he might not recognize the value power can offer and the importance of the balance of power in promoting stability/safeguarding American interests and allies. I need to hear more about that at any Senate confirmation hearings, should he be nominated for Defense Secretary.
On the Palestinian-Israeli issue,
Haaretz has a piece on Hagel. Excerpts from that piece:
...he endorses the “Clinton Parameters” enunciated by former President Bill Clinton following the 2000 Camp David summit, saying that these “represent the most comprehensive, detailed and practical plan to date for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement and a two-state solution.”
“The Israeli people must be free to live in peace and security,” Hagel wrote in his book. “Similarly, the Palestinian people must also have the same right to live in peace in Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital and with the same hope for a prosperous future.”
Hagel: Israel's Jewish identity is non-negotiable issue in any Mideast dealIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source.
I believe that the Clinton parameters were reasonable and generous. The Palestinian side made a strategic blunder in failing to accept them after Israel had embraced them.
On the issue of East Jerusalem, that is a final status issue. Its status will be determined in negotiations. I don't subscribe to the idea that it must automatically be given to the Palestinians and, on that matter, I disagree with Hagel.
As for bilateral negotiations with Iran, something Senator Hagel has advocated, the U.S. and Iran may already be engaged unofficially in such discussions. Last November, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
wrote, "The United States and Iran are apparently conducting bilateral negotiations through official or semiofficial emissaries — a departure from the previous procedure of multilateral talks." What's most important is not the process--and bilateral negotiations might lend a sense of gravity and clarity to the issue--but the outcome. The U.S. position that Iran must not become a nuclear-armed power should be the end goal of any diplomatic process, given the balance-of-power implications of such a development. The U.S. should have a strategy in place should negotiations fail. Given the Afghanistan and Iraq experience, my worry is that a robust strategy is not available. General ideas about targeting absent a big picture assessment of what would be achieved and responses to alternative scenarios e.g., Iranian retaliation directly and/or through proxies, don't cut it.
As for Afghanistan, the U.S. strategy has been inherently flawed since the war was launched back in 2001. The Kabul/Karzai-centric approach has led to impaired progress. Tactical changes e.g., troop surges notwithstanding, that underlying Kabul/Karzai-centric approach has not been changed. The muddled outcomes are no surprise. The unreliable, unsteady, and crony regime in Kabul is part of the reason the Taliban maintains more than a degree of support in that country. It's a big part of the reason the country remains unstable.
Finally, the largest national security issues today include Iran's nuclear activities, China's evolution and the balance of power in Asia (policy emphasis on helping assure that the evolution is not a disruptive one, as China will become a great power regardless, but it need not be a Cold War-era type foe), the winding down of the Afghanistan intervention, and continuing North Korean provocations. The Pentagon will undoubtedly have input, but the Pentagon alone cannot be the lead or sole policy architect.
The Palestinian-Israeli dispute does not rank as high nor as urgent as the matters I laid out. It is a fallacy to suggest that a Palestinian-Israeli settlement would bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East. Very little beyond the two countries would change. The same sectarian and religious rivalries that hobble Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq would persist. Moreover, the diplomatic strategy involved in managing that dispute and overall foreign policy approach is largely a matter properly outside the Pentagon's area of responsibility. IMO, it would be a mistake for the Obama Administration to make the Palestinian-Israeli dispute the centerpiece of its foreign policy effort.
Overall, I reserve judgment on Senator Hagel. I'll be interested in seeing what he says during confirmation hearings, if nominated. If he demonstrates an understanding of the importance of the balance of power and can credibly indicate that he would put his responsibilities in implementing U.S. policy ahead of his personal preferences in areas in which they might conflict, then I would not object to his confirmation. If, however, he discounts the balance of power and displays little indication of such a capability to surmount his personal preferences, then I would hope that the Senate would not confirm him.