Obama was right to choose Hagel

The hearings on Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense were a sad spectacle. What we saw was nearly eight hours of score-settling, Obama-bashing, and political theater. What we didn’t see was a serious discussion of America’s changing role in the world.

Senator Hagel was selected by President Obama to oversee a “rebalancing” of American military might that will involve curtailed defense budgets, reduced forces, better control of personnel costs, and avoiding—except in cases of absolute necessity—a long-term commitment of American ground troops. Why Hagel? Because as a combat veteran and Republican former Senator who is also a tough-talking member of the realist camp of foreign policy, he was seen as a moderate and sensible voice who would offer the president blunt, honest advice.

My own preference is for a more robust American presence around the globe, but for now I see no alternative to the current course. Our economy is broken in fundamental ways, and our politicians are apparently incapable of offering remedies. While Hagel’s performance at the hearings could have been far more impressive than it was, he has the right credentials to take charge of what will be a wrenching but necessary process.

And what will this mean for Israel? In the short term, little or nothing. Hagel does not care for Israeli settlements, but so what? Far more relevant is his ongoing support for appropriations and weapons systems for the Jewish state. Legitimate questions were asked about Iran, but they have been fully answered, both at the hearings and before.

In a broader sense, of course, a reduced American role in the world will impact Israel and everyone else, and probably not for the better. Support for Israel is most likely to thrive in a context of broad support for American leadership in the world. But John McCain and Lindsey Graham seemed much more intent on scoring political points than in dealing with this matter in a thoughtful way. As members of the government-bashing, deficit-hating conservative chorus, what exactly do they expect the President, faced with an ongoing and profound fiscal crisis, to do?

Leon Wieseltier, writing with his usual elegance, has argued that “the defense budget is hardly what threatens the government’s solvency.” This seems a bizarre argument to make when defense spending is nearly a quarter of the federal budget. But more important, he fails to understand that public backing for American activism abroad is related not only to how much we pay for the wars we fight but to who pays for the wars we fight.

The monumental error of President George W. Bush and his neocon supporters in launching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was doing what no administration had ever done before: They asked the sons and daughters of working men and women to risk their lives in war while asking the wealthy to pay less in taxes. When democratic countries go to war, they usually pursue domestic policies that promote national unity and social solidarity. They recognize a special obligation to those who bear the direct burden of war and those who benefit least from the affluence of democracy. They foster patriotism by encouraging a sense of shared sacrifice. But President Bush did the opposite, offering tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy.

The neocons just don’t get it: If Americans are to take on burdens abroad, they must be convinced both that America’s cause is just and that those burdens are equitably shared. Right now, when median household income has fallen by 7 percent since 2006 and when those at the top of the income ladder are receiving a bigger slice of the income pie than at any time in the past 60 years, Americans have minimal interest in challenges in the Middle East or anywhere else. Support for Israel, thankfully, remains strong, but we should not delude ourselves about the general political climate.

The grandstanding at the hearings was just that—grandstanding, with a touch of desperation attached. And the hectoring, often hysterical quality of the proceedings was largely ignored by an American public that is simply concerned about other things.

Note to McCain, Graham, and Bill Kristol: If you are interested in an assertive American foreign policy and American leadership throughout the world, this would be a good time to push your party to develop a long-term, bipartisan economic policy to address the economic distress of average Americans. The Democrats are not blameless here; far from it. But I am suggesting that at the moment, it is President Obama who is correctly reading the political tea leaves.

In the current climate, with unemployment and income inequality at record highs, the President is right to look for a realist who will make cuts and the adjustments that need to be made in America’s defense expenditures. And Chuck Hagel is a good man for that job.