That Hagel thing

| January 9, 2013

Of course, despite fierce opposition, the president has nominated Chuck Hagel for the Secretary of Defense during the President’s second term. it almost makes sense that Obama would nominate Hagel, because Hagel shares Obama’s world view. Hagel voted for the war in Iraq, then backed off and called it a “war for oil” like a stupid hippie. He joined Harry Reid in condemning the Iraq surge as “getting bogged down” like Vietnam. As if hippies were writing his talking points.

The Democrats need a Republican to be the Secretary of Defense – Leon Panetta was the first Democrat in that position since 1997 – and I guess they thought Hagel would be a good choice because he was a squad leader in Vietnam and he was also a friend of that partisan veterans organization VoteVets. Jimbo at Blackfive writes about Dana Milbank at the Washington Post who thinks all of that trumps any actual position on the issues that affect the troops. Because we’re all chickenhawks if we oppose Hagel.

I read that the Democrats think that Hagel will apply the lessons we learned in the war in Iraq to the upcoming confrontation with Iran. Yeah, well, the lesson that we should have learned is that countries in that region don’t respond to economic pressure – they only understand strength. And that’s how the surge worked in Iraq. The insurgents in Iraq thought that the Democrat win in the Congress was going to result in an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, instead we injected thousands more into the war and they were disheartened and decided they’d be better off joining us than fighting us.

But Hagel nor Obama see the lesson that way. they’re convinced that their sanctions will work, even though there’s not one example of that outcome in recent years. Remember that Qaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction when he thought he was next in line for an invasion after we invaded Hussein’s Iraq? All they understand in that region of the world is strength, and the only thing they respond to is force. Neither Chuck Hagle nor President Obama recognize that simple truth.

Of course, that’s probably good news for the troops because I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t be very happy fighting a war that no one would have any intention to win. We’ve had enough of those the last few years.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. USMCE8Ret says:

    Without a doubt. I don’t think our troops can endure any more cultural sensitivity training, and be forced to be brushed up on their Farsi.

    In retrospect, the nomination makes perfect sense. Hagel is all over the map and unpredictable on issues, just like the President. Two peas in a pod.

  2. rb325th says:

    Hagel is anti-Israel, will do as his master bids and gut the DoD, and there will be no upcoming confrontation with Iran. Unless it is a continuation of the Drone Wars, which have not worlked out so well so far for this Administration when it comes to Iran…

  3. Twist says:

    I remember them going on how the surge failed.

    In 2005-2006 I was deployed with the 172nd SBCT and Mosul and Baghdad were the wild west. You couldn’t walk 100 meters without finding 5 bodies. Hell they extended us 3 days before I was supposed to get on a plane home so we could be the stopgap until the surge got there.

    Fast forward to my 2008-2009 tour. I can count on one finger how many times I was shot at. That right there shows you how out of touch with reality our politicians are.

  4. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Hagel and Obama think that their pretty words are more sophisticated than the lower class peasants who held office before them. Thus they are convinced their sheer eloquence will change the outcome in the middle east. Like Mr. Chamberlain before them, they are misreading the tea leaves completely. As you point out a nation where violence and oppression are the normal day to day process of government, pretty words do little other than convince the leaders in Iran you are weak.

    I’m still for showing a complete and total Big Army outcome to all of these 4ssholes in the middle east….but our previous and our current leaders lack the will to engage in that level of conflict. The prevailing wisdom is that an army of occupation acting as a stabilizing force, along with some search and arrest will convert the country to a stable ally….that strategy is an epic fail, Afghanistan is hardly stable. When we leave I doubt there are a great many folks convinced that Karzai can stay in power and rule. In this instance words did nothing, hopefully our actions will be addressed to avoid a return to Taliban rule. I am not convinced that this administration is capable of recognizing or addressing the requirements that nation building in Afghanistan requires.

  5. NHSparky says:

    Despite Hagel being a stereotypical RINO, he’s as others have noted a “safe” pick for Obama because he won’t stray far from the reservation, and then the Dems can (laughably) claim how they’re “bipartisan” and “reaching across the aisle”, which anyone with any sense of reality knows is a joke.

  6. GruntSgt says:

    BOHICA!! I’m personally fed up with watching the systemic dismanteling of all the the things I signed up to serve for. Watching this country being turned into one bigass welfare state where those that don’t, get, and those that do, get fucked.Yeah, cut and gut the military to bare bones, then when the shit hits the fan wonder why we’re not prepared to deal with it. The result will be Congressional Hearings to see who they can blame it on or get someone to fall on their sword. These Pussies on the Potomac never learn from history and the consequences of it. Fuck’em and let’em eat fish heads!

  7. NHSparky says:

    I’m waiting for another 9/11 come around 2017, and the resulting investigation will show the evisceration and political correctness that caused it will be blamed on the Republican president who was in office for all of eight months at the time.

    Then again, at least after 9/11 there WAS an investigation…9/11/2001, anyway. 9/11/2012? Stop. Hurt. Sides. Laughing.

  8. Common Sense says:

    Elections have consequences, and most of the US population couldn’t care less. Kerry, Hagel, and Brennan?

    I would cross my fingers and hunker down for the next 4 years, hoping that we make it until the next election, but I have no faith that our citizens, or the Republican Party, would be any smarter the next time around. I fear there are far too many now that only see what’s in it for them as far as free stuff and not the future of this country. They will not see the existential threat from the Middle East until it smacks them in the face.

    In my mind, I can see the spread of Islamic jihad on a world map the way the used to show the spread of Communism and it’s headed our way. Europe is probably already lost.

  9. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @8 Our countrymen are lazy slobs who claim they despise Congress to the point of a minimal 10% approval rating, yet these lazy slobs re-elect 94% of their representatives to additional terms of office.

    Clearly there is a disconnect between what pulling the lever or coloring in a box means to these people…unlike the reality series “Survivor” writing the name of someone on election day does not remove them from the tribe….dumb4sses.

  10. USMCE8Ret says:

    HOW IN THE HELL could Americans have possibly voted this administration in again?!!!

    And yes, NHSparky, I agree. This administration will blame the crisis on Bush or the intelligence community on the next crisis by simply connecting some dots. It’s their MO, but at least their consistent at SOMETHING!

  11. PhillyandBCEagles says:

    Eh, Obama is President unfortunately. Hagel is obviously far from perfect, but who better is out there that Obama is realistically going to nominate?

  12. Twist says:

    Sparky, two things that I have learned in the last 12 years.

    1. Anything bad that happens withing 30 seconds of a Republican President being sworn in, it’s all their fault. Anything good that happens 8 years after a Repblican President is sworn in is all due to the last Democrat President.

    2. Anything good that happens within 30 seconds of a Democrat President being sworn in, it’s all because of them. Anything bad that happens 4 years after a Democrat President is sworn in is all the fault of the last Republican President.

  13. NHSparky says:

    but who better is out there that Obama is realistically going to nominate?

    I heard the name Michele Flournoy batted around some before last week, and IIRC, she is thought of highly by people in both parties. I myself don’t know much of her work, but even as a Democrat and what I have seen of her she doesn’t sound like a bad choice.

    Certainly better than Hagel.

  14. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Anti-Semite, anti-gay, pro-Iran secretary of defense? Philly, anyone would be a better choice….f$ck Mr. Hagel and anybody who likes him.

  15. streetsweeper says:

    Okay, so who is this Hagel critter? And what did he do during his tour of service that made him super trooper er whatever? Ah….Let me guess. He was in the US Senate during the same time that Obama was voting “present”.

  16. UpNorth says:

    Street, now that you mention it, why yes, yes he was. He’s an easy pick for Owebowma, when the DoD falls apart, a Republican can be blamed.