News

Hagel looms — will AIPAC dare to take him on?

One of the most extraordinary dramas of the modern presidency, the Floating of Chuck Hagel, in which a fundamental question of the People versus A Special Interest was debated in the media thanks to White House leaks– with powerful zealots and editorial page writers and tweeters and bloggers and senators weighing in– is coming to its final act, with all signs that Obama is going to damn the torpedoes and nominate Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

“Next week the bullshit stops” on Hagel, says former Senator Max Cleland, who like Hagel was injured in Vietnam. 

Neoconservative Ari Fleischer is angrily resigned to it:

When Obama names Hagel, I hope there’s a table in the room so we can see if there is anything on it.  

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post says the appointment is a move to the left:

Oddly, the nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel will be the strongest indication yet that Obama is moving to the left in his second term

Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian agrees, calling the likely appointment one of the boldest moves of the Obama presidency. And he urges liberals to join realists to smash the Israel lobby:

at the very least, Hagel’s confirmation will be a much-needed declaration that some mild dissent on foreign policy orthodoxies and Israel is permitted. It will shatter AIPAC’s veto power and dilute the perception of the so-called “pro-Israel community’s” unchallengeable power. It will ensure that there is at least some diversity of viewpoints when it comes to debating endless war, belligerence v. negotiations, and MidEast policy. It will highlight the typically-suppressed differences within the GOP and the country about America’s war posture. In sum, as Matt Duss very persuasively detailed in the American Prospect, Hagel’s confirmation would bring some incremental though potentially substantial benefits.

Given the steadfast and usually unquestioning support most liberals have given this Democratic President as he’s pursued policies of aggression and militarism, they should refrain from opposing one of the few prominent dissidents on these matters absent some very compelling reasons. So far, nothing remotely compelling has been offered. If this nomination actually happens, this will be one of Obama’s best appointments and boldest steps of his presidency. It would be ironic indeed, and more than a bit unfortunate, if liberals decide to make this nomination one of the very few times they are willing to oppose their party’s leader.

The Republican Jewish Coalition wants a bruising nomination battle. Matt Brooks tweets:

If Obama chooses Hagel “he can expect a very difficult and bruising nomination battle.” Very tough warning.

But the RJC is made up of neoconservative zealots, aligned with Bill Kristol and the Emergency Committee for Israel and Josh Block of the Israel Project, formerly of AIPAC. They can’t mount an attack on Hagel without the big Jewish organizations, AIPAC and the ADL and the Conference of Presidents. Jim Lobe doesn’t think that battle is going to happen. He says that AIPAC will read the writing on the wall– Senate confirmation of a decorated war hero (Steve Walt’s describes Hagel as such in talking to Lobe)– and understand that it could lose considerable political capital if it takes the battle on.

If it [AIPAC] mounts a vigorous campaign to fight Hagel’s confirmation by the Senate, it could put at serious risk its relations with the president, who is about to be inaugurated for another four-year term.

Worse, if it loses such a campaign, the aura of near-invincibility that it has assiduously cultivated over the past 30 years – and which has translated into virtually unanimous votes on resolutions in both houses of Congress in support of Israeli policies from the Occupied West Bank to Iran – will suffer a serious blow.

Yet, if it acquiesces in Hagel’s confirmation, it will result in the placement in a critical foreign policy post of a man who prides himself on his independence.

Hagel has expressed strong scepticism about – if not opposition to – war with Iran, and, despite a record of strong support for Israel’s defence needs, has not hesitated to publicly criticise both the Israeli government and its supporters here for pursuing actions that have, in his view, harmed Washington’s strategic interests in the Middle East.

Yes: the Hagel nomination would be bad news for those wanting war with Iran. And so Lobe suggests that AIPAC might oppose Hagel because it is listening to Netanyahu: 

AIPAC and like-minded groups will no doubt be influenced by the views of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose right-wing coalition is favoured to win elections later this month.

The major U.S. Jewish organisations and AIPAC have historically given great weight to the policy preferences of Israel’s elected leadership, even as they have privately urged them to take a different course.

MJ Rosenberg thinks that AIPAC won’t fight Hagel. Or maybe it will. Rosenberg hasn’t made up his mind. Two tweets, ten minutes apart:

The lobby will not dare exposé itself for what it is by defeating a Cabinet appointment out of loyalty to a foreign country…

Has a foreign lobby ever tried to defeat a Cabinet appointment before?

So Rosenberg is prepared to make this a fight over dual loyalty. The former operative for the Israel lobby who bravely gave us “Israel Firsters,” and sought to marginalize the neocons on that basis, wants AIPAC exposed as a foreign agent. So we are back to the fundamental issue at the heart of this conflict, The American people’s interest versus the Israeli government’s interest. Joy.

Update: Cleland also plays the war hero card at Talking Points Memo:

“Look Chuck Hagel in the eye and vote up or down. Against a combat-wounded veteran, against a former member of the United States Senate, against a foreign relations committee member, against a sitting member of the military intelligence advisory committee to the Department of Defense,” he said. “Look him in the eye and vote against him for Secretary of Defense. Are you kidding me?”

Thanks to Harry Hjalmarson and Ilene Cohen.

60 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

of course, with all the ‘my way or the highway’ of the Israeli lobby, if AIPAC doesn’t oppose Hagel, it will rightly be viewed as a back-down retreat. So, the real decision should be framed as the possibility of doing their dirty deed and defeating Hagel vs showing a retreat vs. being defeated.

The great pieces by Phil on the Hagel nomination just keep on coming — one can’t find this quality of analysis anywhere else in the world.

My small contribution to the discussion: since contemporary Zionism is suffused with messianism — arrogant and irrational self-confidence concerning Israel’s supposed God-sanctioned historical mission among “the nations” — it is quite possible that Israel and the Israel lobby will behave self-destructively and pursue their current vicious campaign to destroy Chuck Hagel. One needs to understand their psychology to predict their behavior — and their psychology is an open book.

> The Republican Jewish Coalition wants a bruising nomination battle.
>> “If Obama chooses Hagel “he can expect a very difficult and bruising nomination >> battle.” Very tough warning.”

It’s really an indication of the opposite. If the RJC wanted a bruising battle they wouldn’t be trying so hard to prevent Obama from nominating Hagel.

RE: “Next week the bullshit stops” on Hagel, says former Senator Max Cleland, who like Hagel was injured in Vietnam. ~ Weiss

MY COMMENT: It will be interesting to see what position my “chickenhawk” senator Saxby Chambliss takes on Hagel.
Chambliss has been on the Israel Project’s “board of advisors” since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate back in 2002. Then a congressman, Chambliss advanced to the U.S. Senate by defeating the incumbent senator Max Cleland (D-GA), a recipient of both the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat during the Vietnam War.

FROM WIKIPEDIA [Saxby Chambliss]:

(EXCERPT) . . . [Saxby] Chambliss focused on the issue of national defense and homeland security during his campaign, and
released an ad that included Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, highlighting Cleland’s record on the issues of war and terrorism.*
[8]
Chambliss received criticism from Democrats and Republicans for this ad, pointing out that he, who hadn’t served in the Vietnam War due to receiving military deferments, had attacked a Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during his service for not being tough enough on issues of war and homeland security. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of one ad, “[I]t’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible;” Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the ads were “beyond offensive to me.”[9] On the other hand, Chambliss supporters say the ad did not question Cleland’s patriotism, but rather his judgment.[10][11] . . .

SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss

* Sure does smell a “whole heap” like the work of Arthur J. Finkelstein!

Cleland and Greenwald rock!
Thanks so much for your coverage of this issue, Phil.
Here’s Lindsey Graham this morning on State of the Union:

Republican lawmakers on Sunday rushed to throw cold water on news that President Obama will reportedly nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as his next secretary of defense on Monday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham led the chorus, calling it an “in-your-face nomination” from a White House that was already knee-deep in an “in-your-face” second term.

“This is an in-your-face nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel,” said Graham, during an appearance on “State of the Union” on CNN. “I don’t know what his management experience is regarding the Pentagon — little, if any. So I think it’s an incredibly controversial choice, and it looks like the second term of President Obama is going to be an in-your-face term. I’m not going to talk to you at all about the debt ceiling, and here’s my secretary of defense nominee that is going to get a lot of bipartisan concern.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/06/chuck-hagel-defense-secretary_n_2420582.html