NOVDECMAR
21
201120122014
20 captures
21 Dec 2012 - 22 Mar 2021
About this capture
Stand Up to the Intimidators
PAUL PILLAR
| More
Paul R. Pillar | December 19, 2012
The effort to slander Chuck Hagel and to torpedo his potential nomination to be secretary of defense has reached such intensity that there is now much more at stake in this nomination than just who will be running the Pentagon over the next four years. Robert Merry in these spaces has portrayed well the sordidness of the calumny-flingers who make little effort to hide their main reason for going after Hagel, which is that he does not believe in subordinating U.S. interests to the wishes of the right-wing Israeli government and its American backers. Those in the anti-Hagel campaign who try to make it look as if there are non-Israeli reasons to shoot him down make arguments that move from the sordid to the ridiculous. The Washington Post's editorial on the subject is a good example. It tries to portray the former Republican senator from Nebraska as some kind of leftist peacenik, because he suggests there is some trimming that could usefully be done to U.S. defense spending (which is greater than the next 14 biggest military spenders—friends and foes—put together, and is the highest in inflation-adjusted dollars that it has been since World War II) and expresses skepticism about going to war against Iran (which the Post's editorialists acknowledge they have also expressed skepticism about, but that doesn't stop them from portraying the skepticism as somehow a point against Hagel). For a more thorough dismantling of this absurd editorial, see Andrew Sullivan's exegesis of it.
To the extent the placing of Hagel's name in the kind of unofficial nomination it is in right now was the result of deliberate balloon-floating by the White House, it is hard to see exactly what the White House thought it was doing. Making the nomination official and letting Hagel speak for himself would do a lot to puncture the falsehoods and smears about him. Maybe letting his name get out as the leading potential nominee was less a calculated act than plain old sloppy leaking. If one wants to give the White House more credit than that, one might postulate that it floated the name so the opponents would have a chance to discredit themselves so much through the sheer outrageousness of their arguments that they would not only lose this political battle but also be weaker in later ones. That way the president might get not only the secretary of defense he wants but also some more running room on issues such as the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There is some valid logic to that. But such bold political jiu-jitsu does not seem to be this president's usual style. He is more likely to be thinking in the customary way, as discussed by Peter Baker in the New York Times, about conserving political capital, picking one's fights carefully, and keeping in mind all the other issues he may have to fight about (and he just got another one: gun control).
If the president applies to the nomination of a defense secretary a cautious approach grounded in such thinking, he would be making a mistake. He would be acting without sufficient appreciation for how intimidation works. Intimidation feeds on itself, with successful intimidation encouraging more of the same and failures discouraging further attempts. Neither Chuck Hagel nor anyone else has a right to any cabinet post, but given how this matter has already evolved, if the president now does not nominate him for the defense job it will be universally seen as a caving in to the neocons and Netanyahuites. Mr. Obama will be politically weaker as a result. He will have lost political capital rather than having conserved it. And he will have encouraged more such intimidation in the future.
Conversely, standing up to the intimidators and pushing a Hagel nomination through to confirmation would improve his ability to battle against the same forces on other issues. Even if the White House did not plan it that way, it would be a political plus for the president. More importantly, it would be a blow for decency and reason and a setback for one of the more damaging and tawdry features of American politics.
It is hard to imagine any future issues offering a conspicuously better place to draw a line in the sand and to start pushing back than this one. Based on what has already been said, there is reason to hope that the tawdriness—​as James Fallows puts it in an insightful piece on this subject—“has finally gone so far that it will impeach itself.” It impeaches itself with arguments such as that a United States senator or cabinet member putting U.S. interests ahead of the interests of a foreign country or the wishes of a foreign government is somehow a bad thing.
Image: Flickr/State Farm.
MORE BY PAUL R. PILLAR
Topics: DOMESTIC POLITICS DEFENSE IDEOLOGY​THE PRESIDENCY
Regions: ISRAEL IRAN UNITED STATES
Login or register to post comments
FEATURED STORIES
ECONOMICS
Does China Belong in the WTO?
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
A New Agenda for Japan
SECURITY
Pyongyang Is Still Deterred
STORIES RELATED TO Stand Up to the Intimidators
The Assault on Chuck Hagel
Stop Leaking and Start Nominating
NATO's West Bank Nightmare
The Presidential-Appointee Problem
COMMENTS
tonyframe (December 20, 2012 - 9:23am)
Good question about the "deliberate balloon-floating."  Q: Do you notice the anger if Mr. Hagel is not allowed to speak and represent a nomination? Also: The issue posed by the intimidators' method as we watch them up close here in the US: if we start connecting their ideas and methods with that of the State of Israel, that revelation can do a lot of harm (my opinion).Q: Is this about more weapon transfers or funding for the Irone Dome? Thanks, T.
Login or register to post comments
tonyframe (December 21, 2012 - 1:30pm)
I don't think they understand America or other reasons are at play: 1) We'll elect a woman President first and then one day support a woman SecDef. nominee 2) Choosing a pro-gay candidate or homosexual will aggressively take sides ref. the Gay Pride Parade overseas (my opinions). Thanks,T. 
Login or register to post comments
BLOGGERATI
Jacob HEILBRUNN
Paul PILLAR
The BUZZ
CURRENT ISSUE
Nov-Dec 2012
COVER STORY
Reading Machiavelli in Iraq
Complete Table of Contents
MOST POPULAR
Stand Up to the Intimidators
Iran's Conservatives Push for a Deal
Foreign Policy Priorities for Xi Jinping
Does China Belong in the WTO?
Western Europe vs. Religious Freedom
BECOME A READER
Just $29.95! 44% off the cover price

NEWSLETTER
Stay informed on our latest news!
Email: *

Subscribe
Unsubscribe

THE LEDE
Iran's Conservatives Push for a Deal
Register Log In
Follow The National Interest
December 21, 2012

HOME
MAGAZINE
ARTICLES
BLOGS
VIDEOS
Explore by Topic...
SECURITY
SOCIETY
ECONOMICS
POLITICS
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Explore by Region...
AFRICA
AMERICAS
ASIA
EURASIA
EUROPE
MIDDLE EAST
OCEANIA
Follow The National Interest

About Us
Press Room
Subscriptions
Contact Us
Jobs and Internships
Submission Guidelines
Permissions
Advertising Masthead
©2010 The National Interest. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
SECURITYSOCIETYECONOMICSPOLITICSGLOBAL GOVERNANCEREGIONSMAGAZINEARTICLESBLOGSVIDEOSSUBSCRIBEDIGITAL