Most opposition to Chuck Hagel is due to some of his views on foreign policy. Chuck Hagel is seen as anti-empire and anti-war, much to the disgust of the War Party. Hagel has promoted the idea of the United States talking to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, supported the Iraq War but soon opposed it, and has claimed that "A military strike against Iran ... is not a viable, feasible, responsible option."
Some comments that Chuck Hagel has made in regards to Israel has earned himself the smear of "anti-Semite" from the neoconservatives. Hagel told author Aaron David Miller that "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up there". He has since conceded that he misspoke in using the phrase "Jewish lobby". But there is indeed a "Pro-Israel lobby" whose goal is the shape and mold U.S. foreign policy to the benefit of the State of Israel while not necessarily benefiting the United States. Hagel would go further to say that "I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," he told Miller. "I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath ... to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
Chuck Hagel has earned the smear of "anti-Semite" because he supposedly places the interest of the United States before the interests of the State of Israel. To your typical neoconservatives, if one does not equate the interest of the United States with the interests of the State of Israel, they are smeared as anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semite deserving the greatest condemnation.
The neoconservatives and the Washington establishment also fear his views on talking to Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. They fear that such talks will make America "weak" and that talking to our supposed enemies will only encourage them. As Patrick Buchanan has stated, "Harry Truman talked to Josef Stalin and read Vyacheslav Molotov the riot act in the Oval Office. Ike invited Nikita Khrushchev to tour the United States three years after he sent tanks into Budapest. Richard Nixon went to China and toasted Mao Zedong, 20 years after the Chinese were killing U.S. solders in Korea and brainwashing our POWs, and at the same time they were conducting their maniacal cultural revolution and shipping weapons to Hanoi.
Israel negotiated with Hezbollah to retrieve the remains of airman Ron Arad and traded 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in a deal with Hamas for the return of Pvt. Gilad Shalit. And we can't talk to them?"
Many believe that the nomination of Chuck Hagel will bring change to U.S. foreign policy. Even many anti-war conservatives and quasi-libertarians are jumping on the Chuck Hagel bandwagon. But as Congressmen Ron Paul has stated, such belief is "really just a mistaken over-emphasis on personnel over policy. We should not forget that cabinet secretaries serve the president, and not the other way around." He further states that " But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports 'keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force....the real problem is in placing too much emphasis on the person the president hires to carry out his foreign and defense policy, as it ignores that policy itself. If the president has decided to continue or even expand US military action overseas through more covert warfare and use of special operations forces, which seems to be the case, it will matter little who he chooses to carry out those policies. If the president decides to continue to provide support to rebels in Syria who have dubious ties to Islamic extremists, to continue to meddle in the internal affairs of countless countries overseas, to continue to refuse to even talk with Iran without preconditions, and so on, we will not see a return to foreign policy sanity no matter who occupies what position in the president’s cabinet."
As Laurence Vance, a Christian author and a libertarian, has put it: "Hagel as secretary of defense will change nothing when it comes to U.S. foreign or military policy. Will the U.S. Navy no longer be a global force for evil (not good as the commercials say)? Of course not. Does Hagel want to bring all U.S. troops home from overseas? Of course not. Has he ever said that U.S. troops should no longer be in Germany, Japan, and Italy--since WWII ended in 1945? Of course not. Does Hagel want to close all foreign military bases? Of course not. Does he want to close any? I mean out of principle, not because they are no longer an efficient use of resources. Does Hagel think very highly of the U.S. military and its role in the world? Of course he does. Will Hagel be loyal to the president and his foreign and military policy objectives? Of course he will. Does Hagel think that the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and stop intervening? Of course not. Would Hagel be "better" than Rumsfeld? Only in the sense that getting hit 9 times is better than 10 or getting $9 stolen is better than $10."
I am not very optimistic that the nomination of Chuck Hagel will change the fundamental foreign policy of war, empire and interventionism to a foreign policy of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none" of our Founding Fathers.
No comments:
Post a Comment