The choice of a maverick Republican as his new defence secretary suggests that President Obama, unfettered by the need for re-election, is finally making a decisive break from the foreign policy of his predecessor, George W Bush.
IHS Global Insight perspective | |
Significance | Although a Republican, the nomination of Chuck Hagel points to a more distinctively Democratic second-term foreign policy from Obama. |
Implications | Hagel will have to overcome criticism from fellow Republicans over his views on foreign affairs during the Bush presidency. |
Outlook | He offers Obama a useful buffer in his attempts to curb defence spending and thereby stabilise the US fiscal position. |
Hagelian thought
Obama appeared yesterday (7 January) in the East Room of the White House to reveal his preferred heads of the defence department and the Central Intelligence Agency. Nominated for the first post was Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and a veteran of the Vietnam War who has in the past had presidential ambitions. For the second, Obama nominated John Brennan, his counter-terrorism adviser and a 25-year CIA veteran. Obama first considered Brennan for the CIA post in 2008 but Brennan withdrew under pressure from Democrats angered by his senior role within the Bush-era CIA, which they accused of torture and of intelligence failings. In his address the president hinted at the furore that surrounded Brennan in 2008, countering that Brennan has worked to place CIA activities within a strong legal framework and that he had impressed Obama with "his integrity and his commitment to the values that define us as Americans". This time, the CIA chief is likely to be confirmed with little difficulty by the senate.
This may not be the case for Obama's other choice. Obama described Hagel as "the leader that our troops deserve" and recounted his Vietnam record, noting that he would be the first former soldier of enlisted rank to lead the Pentagon. US troops, he said, saw in Hagel a decorated veteran who was "one of their own", and who was a "champion" of serving and retired personnel. Obama said that Hagel recognised that armed force should always be deployed only when absolutely necessary and that rallying US allies was preferable to working without them. "Sergeant Hagel", Obama said, had a frame of reference geared to the ordinary fighting soldier, one that by implication was removed from that of the officer class.
This is important, because during Obama's second term he will attempt to reduce the numbers of mid-ranking officers, to retrench from Cold War-era deployments and to end the Bush-era and Clinton-era policies of using the US military in "nation building" enterprises overseas. This shift was made explicit in his defence review one year ago (see World - United States: 6 January 2013: US President Announces End of Nation Building in Defence Review). To this end, the US is to withdraw the majority of its 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, leaving a residual force of trainers and Special forces operatives. The size of this force is under discussion, but Hagel's record as a senator suggests he will push for a lower number around the 10,000 mark floated for the past year.
Republican mistrust
Hagel's performance as a Republican senator under the Bush administration has prompted some leading Republicans, including senators John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham, to indicate they will vote against his nomination. It is not difficult to see why. Hagel voted in favour of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, but within two years had claimed that the war was destabilising the Middle East and that US troops should withdraw. Hagel, then the second-ranking Republican on the senate foreign relations committee, voted against the troop "surge" that helped to reduce the very high levels of violence seen in 2005-06 to today's low-intensity conflict, instead condemning it as a strategic error (see United States - Iraq: 23 January 2007: Republican Senator Launches Bipartisan Motion Opposing US's Iraq Troop Surge). He was reported by CNS News in 2008 as saying that the Iraq war was fought for access to that country's oil supplies. However, Hagel has some Republican supporters. Among them is Dov Zakheim, a defence advisor to the man Obama defeated in November's election, Mitt Romney.
|
Former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (R) speaks in the East Room |
Comments attributed to Hagel on the subject of Israel and Iran will also create waves during his confirmation process (see United States: 7 January 2013: US president set to nominate Republican for defence secretary). Hagel has downplayed the effectiveness of possible air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme and in September 2007 voted against sanctioning Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who are poised to play a key role in Iran's presidential polls later this year, as a terrorist organisation. Although Obama has worked to build an effective system of international sanctions system against Iran, he is less hawkish when it comes to military intervention, and Hagel's views therefore align with those of the president. More serious for his chances of confirmation are Hagel's references to the power of the "Jewish lobby" in Washington, which has prompted charges of anti-semitism from, among others, former Republican assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams. Iranian state media, in the form of Press TV, lauded Hagel as an "anti-Israel ex-senator".
Outlook and implications
Given his record, Hagel can be expected to reject calls from within the military establishment for a slower withdrawal from Afghanistan than is already timetabled. Such calls, although a minority opinion among the US public at large, are likely to become louder in the prelude to next year's presidential elections in Afghanistan, when the incumbent Hamid Karzai is due to step down. This process will spotlight the general weakness of Afghanistan's post-2001 institutions and the considerable power retained by its regional warlords, as well as the non-defeat of the Taliban in southern and eastern provinces. The prospect of internal conflict in post-2014 Afghanistan is likely to increase pressure from within the Pentagon for the US to relax its deadline for ending the mission of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Hagel, as a combat veteran and a Republican, is well placed to fend-off such demands, providing political cover for Obama in the process.
This cover has budgetary significance. Winding down the USD100 billion budget for military operations in Afghanistan is one means of closing the US fiscal deficit, the overarching priority facing Washington politicians. There is a possibility that Hagel's confirmation hearings will become entangled in the partisan debate over cuts to the defence budget, which are due to be inflicted automatically from 1 March under the terms of a New Year compromise deal on the so-called "fiscal cliff" (see United States: 2 January 2013: Last-minute compromise spares US from "fiscal cliff"). These cuts are in turn likely to be part of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over a deal to lift once more the US federal debt ceiling, which must happen in or before February if the US is to avoid default. Republicans are likely to try to shield the defence department from the full extent of the automatic cuts. How Hagel responds to such budgetary questions may have a bearing on his chances of confirmation.
Along with John Kerry, Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, Hagel's nomination suggests that Obama's second-term foreign policy will be more distinctive and less Bush-like than that of this first term. Since 2008 Obama has been criticised within his own party for retaining and sometimes expanding aspects of the Bush counter-terrorism and military doctrine that were criticised by Democrats between 2000-2008, including UAV strikes in Pakistan, the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, and even an attempt to replicate the Iraq surge in Afghanistan. If Hagel is confirmed, he will lead the US through a period of military rationalisation that will be less sensitive to criticism from Republicans and senior military officers that it is jeopardising US national security or overseas interests.