NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Iraq surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq surge. Show all posts

07 February 2013

Angry Senators Afraid of Debate & John McCain’s Theology of War is Wrong 7&1FEB13

COMMENTARY from Jim Wallis of Sojourners, food for thought....


We do not arm ourselves against any nation; we do not learn the art of war; because, through Jesus Christ, we have become the children of peace.

-Origen

It was the biggest story inside the Beltway. Since last Thursday’s hearing, the whole Washington media machine has been discussing and dissecting the extraordinary confrontation in the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the potential confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel as the new secretary of defense. Several Republican senators were extremely combative with the combat veteran who earned two Purple Hearts for his wounds in Vietnam. Hagel deserves another Purple Heart for the wounds his former “friends” and party members tried to inflict upon him. Hagel didn’t really defend his views — which were both caricatured and attacked by his adversaries — perhaps on White House advice not to risk further debates before being confirmed.
But I think Hagel’s views and the important questions he has raised about current U.S. wars and military policy deserve defending and, indeed, should become the subjects of a national debate. So I wrote a piece about one of Hagel’s most hostile questioners who insisted the possible new secretary answer the simple question of whether the surge in Iraq was “right” or “wrong.” I said it was wrong, as was the war in Iraq, as was the war in Vietnam, as are the views of John McCain on war throughout his entire political career; and how the nation has been wounded by McCain’s and others’ “theology of war.
Chuck Hagel’s views could lead us to a necessary national debate if he becomes the new leader of the Pentagon. And it is that potential debate that Hagel’s critics are so afraid to have.
Chuck Hagel is the first soldier of enlisted rank to ever be nominated as secretary of defense. Think about that. As an Army sergeant, Hagel says he saw war from “the bottom up.” That is very different from the “top down” view of war that has always characterized the Pentagon and the military leaders who have sent so many young men and women to the bottom of so many horrible conflicts. Hagel says he wants to make absolutely sure that a projected war is worthy of the lives of American young men and women.
Those wars of occupation have clearly failed — as more and more Americans believe — and they have caused such terrible destruction and suffering for so many American families, and for the countless innocents from other countries who have perished in our wars. Isn’t it time to seriously debate wars like these?
Just today, my wife and I talked about the pain of a fourth-grade teacher in our son’s school who lost her son in Afghanistan last summer. We all know or have heard the stories of children who have lost one of their parents or at least precious time with them, or the wives and husbands who have lost their beloved in unnecessary wars. This is a national tragedy it is time to morally debate. When we see all the ads and stories about our “wounded warriors” and all the suffering they now need to overcome, can we start to ask about the decisions and decision-makers who sent them? War looks far different from the bottom up than it does from the top down; and that is exactly the change we need.
This possible future secretary of defense also thinks there is Pentagon spending that should and could be cut; and he wants to distinguish between genuine national defense and the business of war — including the political pork of massive military expenditures. In raising those critical questions, Hagel sounds like another Republican and war veteran who warned America about the growing “military industrial complex” when he left the office of the U.S. presidency — General Dwight Eisenhower. But the military contractors who control much of our foreign policy are trying to prevent that debate. They don’t want Hagel either.
Then there were all the attacks on Hagel about U.S. policy toward Israel, even with charges of “anti-Semitism.” But why can’t we debate the policies of the state of Israel, their expanding settlements, their treatment of Palestinians, and how the door is closing on the possibility of a genuine two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Are we critical only of Hamas rocket attacks? A new generation of Jewish leaders in the U. S. and in Israel is entering that debate — along with people of every faith who are unequivocally opposed to terrorism in all its forms but believe that many of our current military and foreign policy assumptions are actually making those threats worse.
Then there was the problem of Iran. Why is the idea of engaging our enemies dismissed as naïve and indefensible, and why again are military solutions believed to be the most effective in the end? If “containment” was our policy with the Soviet Union over several decades, why should it be completely rejected now?  Should we have gone to nuclear war with the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis? We better have a national debate before starting or supporting another war in Iran.
The questions that a decorated foot soldier and former senator has asked raise the possibility of a new national debate about United States foreign and military policy. The president’s appointment of Hagel suggests he thinks such debate is healthy. I believe a majority of Americans, who are very weary of our failed war policies, are also ready for that debate. And that is what the senators and supporters of our old policies are so angry with Hagel about. They are afraid of the debate that our nation needs to have.
It’s time to confirm Chuck Hagel. It’s time to have the debate.
Jim Wallis is the author of the forthcoming book, On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned about Serving the Common Good and CEO of SojournersFollow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

John McCain’s Theology of War is Wrong


John McCain angrily insisted on “right” and “wrong” answers to his questions of Chuck Hagel yesterday. As a theologian and a religious leader, I want to say that John McCain is “wrong.”
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
McCain waits to speak during a campaign visit to support former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Related Reading

I watched the hostile questions that Sen. McCain asked Hagel in the hearings on his nomination for Secretary of Defense. The angry attacks from McCain were about the Iraq War, for which McCain was one of America’s leading advocates. Hagel had previously called the war in Iraq the biggest American foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. Obviously furious, McCain tried to force Hagel to say the last “surge” in Iraq, which McCain had made his cause, was right after all. Despite the aggressive and disrespectful questioning from his former “friend,” Hagel wouldn’t submit to McCain’s demands and said these questions would be subject to history — and to theological morality, to which John McCain has never submitted his views. In fact, his repeated desire to invade other people’s countries is offensive moral hubris.
Let me state some clear convictions from many of us in faith community. The war in Vietnam was morally wrong. The war in Iraq was morally wrong. And John McCain has been morally wrong on both of them. Christian judgments of war should always run a narrow spectrum — from the peacemaking ethic of Jesus which rejects war to the just war theology of Augustine and Aquinas. But even in the just war tradition, conflicts have to pass a number of moral tests and be the option of “last resort.” The burden of proof is always on those who support war to justify the taking of life.
Both Vietnam and Iraq failed those tests and were unnecessary wars of choice. Those wars were unnecessary, the terrible deaths from those wars were unnecessary, the enormous casualties were unnecessary, the painful family losses were unnecessary, and all the horrible costs were unnecessary.
And yesterday, we saw a politician who has based his entire political career on war furiously trying to force a potential Secretary of Defense to say that he has been right all along.
But McCain hasn’t been right in his endless promotion of war as the primary solution to our national conflicts. He has been consistently wrong and America has paid a very high price because of the ideological zealots of war that McCain represents.
After yesterday, I wished that the coming vote on confirmation could be the other way around; that America could somehow vote John McCain out of office and off the American political stage. The cost of McCain’s theology of war has been far too high.
The important discussions yesterday should have been about other critical issues: like how quickly and responsibly we can leave the endless war in Afghanistan, how we can address the real threats of terrorism in better ways than failed wars of occupation, what we should do about the real problem of Iran, and a very serious strategic and moral examination of our growing reliance on drones as a primary instrument of our foreign policy.
Instead, we saw old men defending their old wars. That was both very sad and morally objectionable. In the future, I would suggest the Senate Armed Service Committee call some religious leaders to their hearings to raise the questions that they need to hear.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. His forthcoming book, On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned about Serving the Common Good, is set to release in April. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Photo: Joe Raedle / Getty Images

RELATED STORIES


The plot to derail Chuck Hagel 7FEB13

MORE on the repiglican/tea-bagger opposition to Chuck Hagel because of the threat he poses to the profitability of the military-industrial complex. I was amazed and disgusted by the senators who questioned Hagel about his views on bush's Iraq surge, Israel and Iran while not caring enough to even mention the troops serving in Afghanistan as well as the troops suffering from physical and mental injuries from the Iraq and Afghan wars and the US military suicide rate. E mail your Senators and tell them to vote for Chuck Hagel for Sec of Defense at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm The Senate should hold a vote on his nomination now. Pres Obama must keep Chuck Hagel as his nominee for Sec of Defense and demand the Senate approve him. Go to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6676/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12404
to sign VoteVets petition to Pres Obama supporting Chuck Hagel. And see my earlier post 

SIGN PETITION SUPPORTING CHUCK HAGEL & Chuck Hagel Nomination Draws Praise From Veterans' Groups, Adding Pressure To GOP Opposition 6FEB13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/sign-petition-supporting-chuck-hagel.html

This from Salon.....
The plot to derail Chuck HagelSen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., asks a question of former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013, during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination. (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)
There are two ways of looking at Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin’ssurprise decision to postpone an expected vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Defense secretary.
Most likely, Levin is simply trying to deny Republicans an excuse to vote against Hagel, whose confirmation had seemed assured earlier this week when John McCain and several other influential Senate Republicans ruled out the use of a filibuster. With a committee vote on Thursday looming, though, 25 Republicans – including all 12 GOP members of the committee –signed a letter demanding that it be put off.
At issue are requests that several Republican senators made during Hagel’s hearings last week for transcripts of all of his paid speeches and for records of any foreign funding received by businesses or organizations that Hagel has done work with. On Tuesday, Hagel informed the committee that he had made his best effort to provide the speech transcripts, but that some of his engagements had been private off-the-record affairs for which no texts or recordings are available. And he maintained that he’s not in position to provide any information about the funding for the companies he’s worked with, citing an “obligation to maintain the confidentiality of non-public corporate information.”
This prompted the GOP senators to write their letter, and late Wednesday Levin announced that “the committee’s review of the nomination is not yet complete” but that he still intends to hold a vote “as soon as possible.”
The information that Republicans are demanding, it should be noted, has never been required of previous nominees and sets an almost prohibitively high standard for Hagel – and, potentially, for future nominees. As Steve Clemons explains, it’s hardly unusual for a senator (or a former senator or any other public figure) to deliver an off-the-cuff speech to a small or private group and for no prepared text or recording to exist. And the expectation that Hagel or any other nominee would have the power to force a large company or organization to make its financial relationships public is both unrealistic and unreasonable.
Chances are that Levin isn’t pleased with the GOP’s stubbornness but is simply maneuvering to make it as easy as possible for Republicans to vote for the nomination. Right now, only two GOP senators have said they’ll support Hagel, while many more have indicated opposition. But around two dozen haven’t said anything. Pushing ahead with a Thursday vote in the face of the GOP senators’ letter would have given their colleagues an easy excuse to vote “no” in committee or on the Senate floor. By putting off the vote instead, Levin can take a few days and then claim that a more than reasonable effort has been made to address the senators’ concerns. This could be the difference between a party-line confirmation vote – which would be enough to get Hagel confirmed but wouldn’t exactly read like a vote of confidence – and a more lopsided final tally.
Another possibility, though, is that Levin is acting out of fear of a filibuster. While McCainreiterated his opposition to one even after Wednesday’s developments, the situation is still a bit delicate. There is vigorous opposition to Hagel on the right – enough that it’s not hard to imagine conservative opinion-shapers treating an effort by Democrats to push through Hagel’s nomination this week as a scandalous act and ramping up the pressure on Republican senators to use a filibuster to stop him. McCain alone wouldn’t be able to break a filibuster; four other Republicans would have to join with him. Theoretically, a Hagel opponent in the Senate could also place a hold on his nomination; in fact one Republican practically volunteered to do so in aninterview with Defense News on Wednesday:
Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., when asked by Defense News whether he would place a hold on Hagel’s nomination should it be approved by the panel, played coy.
“That could happen,” Inhofe said with a smile. “I’m not sure who would be doing it.”
For Republicans to derail Hagel’s nomination with a filibuster or a hold would set a troubling precedent. Except in the rarest of cases, presidents have traditionally been granted wide latitude by the Senate in choosing their Cabinets. All nominees get votes, most sail through easily, a few are subjected to intense grillings, and only once every generation or so is one actually rejected. For Hagel to be denied a vote on such flimsy grounds would alter that tradition.
And even if Republicans do ultimately allow a vote, it could set a new precedent if it’s a party-line affair. After all, President Obama’s party has enough senators to win a party-line conformation vote, but what if it becomes routine for Cabinet nominations to be party-line votes? What happens when a future president’s party doesn’t enjoy a Senate majority?
Hagel is still very likely to be confirmed as Defense secretary. But Democrats would prefer that the process be as smooth – and bipartisan – as possible. Which is why Levin’s decision on Wednesday, no matter how frustrating it might be for the White House and its supporters, probably makes sense.
Steve Kornacki
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/the_plot_to_derail_chuck_hagel/

11 January 2013

Israeli Think Tank Defends Hagel Against Neocon Smears & Lindsey Graham Lobs Disingenuous Attacks At Chuck Hagel 9&6JAN12

HERE is a piece from the Israeli think tank Molad (The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy) not only defending and applauding the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Sec of Defense but denouncing the neocons attacks against him, describing them as the"self-anointed supporters" of Israel. Here is their statement from Think Progress, followed by a report on the unsubstantiated attacks against Hagel by sen fotze lindsey graham r SC who has her panties all bunched up and twisted in a neocon tizzy, maybe because she feels she should be the nominee and so is throwing a hissy fit....
An Israeli think tank on Wednesday vigorously defended Chuck Hagel against right-wing smears that he is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and weak on Iran.
Molad, the Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, wrote in a report released today that Hagel’s nomination as the next Defense Secretary should not have anything to do with Israel, but the fact that Israel’s “self-anointed supporters” dragged the Jewish state into the debate, the group felt compelled to respond:
Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense is an internal American matter and, as such, should not involve Israel. In fact, the insertion of Israel into American political debates, often by its self-anointed supporters, does Israel a great disservice. Making it a partisan wedge or a hindrance on American interests harms Israel’s long-term interests. Having been dragged into the debate, Israelis deserve a truthful picture of Hagel’s views and his record, not the caricature painted by right-wing propagandists.
A candid inspection of the Senator’s record leaves no doubt about his support for Israel and his commitment to its security. Chuck Hagel is responsible, knowledgeable, and courageous when it comes to Middle East policy. Presenting his independence and refusal to toe the radical right’s party line as anti-Israel is demagoguery that serves neither the United States nor Israel.
The report pushes back, point-by-point, many of the neocons’ baseless charges against Hagel and concludes: “After examining his record on Israel, his credibility on national security, and his understanding of the region, we believe that those who have Israel’s real interest at heart should applaud his nomination for US Secretary of Defense.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/09/1424181/molad-hagel/

Lindsey Graham Lobs Disingenuous Attacks At Chuck Hagel

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday attacked former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, reportedly President Obama’s choice as the next Defense Secretary, calling him a “controversial pick” and suggesting that Hagel is out of the mainstream. Graham’s evidence? He didn’t offer much in the way of specifics, of course. Rather, the South Carolina Republican claimed Hagel is “very antagonistic toward the state of Israel” (again, not saying how) and complained that Hagel said “you should directly negotiate with Iran” (we’re not sure why this is a bad thing. President Obama believes this as well) and that sanctions on Iran “won’t work.” Graham also cited the fact that Hagel has promoted talks with Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza. Watch the interview clip:
But is Hagel “antagonistic” toward Israel? Hardly. The Nebraska Republican has a history of strong support for Israel, as this blog recently noted. “At it’s core,” Hagel wrote in his book, America, Our Next Chapter, “there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel’s defense.”
But Graham is right. Hagel has supported negotiations with Iran. But so does President Obama and so do a majority of Americans. Hagel has indeed suggested that some sanctions on Iran are counterproductive but he has also supported sanctions on the Islamic Republic during his tenure in the Senate and in March, 2012, he said the U.S. should “keep ratcheting up the sanctions” and try to maintain the international coalition Obama has built against Iran. “Hagel’s positions [on Iran] may put him on the fringes of the Senate,” the Daily Beast’s Ali Gharib wrote last month, “but he’s firmly in the mainstream of expert opinion, from Israel to the Pentagon.”
And why does Graham attack Hagel for promoting talks with Hamas when Israel has negotiated with the terror group and high-level Israeli officials have said Israel should hold future talks? “People ask, why not talk with Hamas? There is nothing wrong, if you get a reply,” Israeli President Shimon Peres said last month. “We are willing to talk to Hamas, but they aren’t.” Moreover, former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy has for years advocated negotiating with Hamas.

Senator Graham also attacked Hagel for opposing President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2007. “I’ll have a hard time voting for anybody to be Secretary of Defense who believes that the surge was a foreign policy blunder,” Graham said on CNN today. But Graham also said during the same interview that he supports Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) nomination as the next Secretary of State. “I respect him,” Graham said of Kerry, adding, “I think he’s a thoughtful man. I think he’s in the mainstream.” But who else thought the Iraq surge was a bad idea? John Kerry (and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). And while it’s unclear what effect Bush’s surge had on the ultimate outcome of the war, one thing is clear: Graham’s continued Iraq war boosting is way outside the mainstream, as a large majority of Americans think the war was not worth fighting.
President Obama is expected to announce Hagel’s nomination as early as tomorrow and until his confirmation, we should expect similar disingenuous and baseless attacks. But Hagel — “a decorated war hero who would be the first enlisted soldier and Vietnam veteran to go on to serve as secretary of defense” — should be confirmed. Indeed, prominent journalists, retired military brass, former national security advisers, former U.S. ambassadors and veterans and military families think so too.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/06/1403301/lindsey-graham-lobs-disingenuous-attacks-on-chuck-hagel/