History > 2013 > USA > Pentagon (I)
Yemen
Death
Test
Claims of New Drone Policy
December
20, 2013
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI
and ROBERT F. WORTH
WASHINGTON
— In some respects, the drone strike in Yemen last week resembled so many others
from recent years: A hail of missiles slammed into a convoy of trucks on a
remote desert road, killing at least 12 people.
But this time the trucks were part of a wedding procession, making the customary
journey from the groom’s house to the house of the bride.
The Dec. 12 strike by the Pentagon, launched from an American base in Djibouti,
killed at least a half-dozen innocent people, according to a number of tribal
leaders and witnesses, and provoked a storm of outrage in the country. It also
illuminated the reality behind the talk surrounding the Obama administration’s
new drone policy, which was announced with fanfare seven months ago.
Although American officials say they are being more careful before launching
drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere — and more transparent about the
clandestine wars that President Obama has embraced — the strike last week offers
a window on the intelligence breakdowns and continuing liability of a targeted
killing program that remains almost entirely secret.
Both the Pentagon and the C.I.A. continue to wage parallel drone wars in Yemen,
but neither is discussed publicly. A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment
about the Dec. 12 strike, referring a reporter to a vague news release issued
last week by the government of Yemen, written in Arabic.
It remains unclear whom the Americans were trying to kill in the strike, which
was carried out in a desolate area southeast of Yemen’s capital, Sana. Witnesses
to the strike’s aftermath said that one white pickup truck was destroyed and
that two or three other vehicles were seriously damaged. The Associated Press
reported Friday that the target of the strike was Shawqi Ali Ahmad al-Badani, a
militant who is accused of planning a terrorist plot in August that led to the
closing of more than a dozen United States Embassies. American officials
declined to comment about that report.
At first, the Yemeni government, a close partner with the Obama administration
on counterterrorism matters, said that all the dead were militants. But Yemeni
officials conceded soon afterward that some civilians had been killed, and they
gave 101 Kalashnikov rifles and about 24 million Yemeni riyals (about $110,000)
to relatives of the victims as part of a traditional compensation process, a
local tribal leader said.
Yemeni government officials and several local tribal leaders said that the dead
included several militants with ties to Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, but no one
has been able to identify them. Some witnesses who have interviewed victims’
families say they believe no militants were killed at all.
The murky details surrounding the strike raise questions about how rigorously
American officials are applying the standards for lethal strikes that Mr. Obama
laid out in a speech on May 23 at the National Defense University — and whether
such standards are even possible in such a remote and opaque environment.
In the speech, the president said that targeted killing operations were carried
out only against militants who posed a “continuing and imminent threat to the
American people.” Over the past week, no government official has made a case in
public that the people targeted in the strike posed a threat to Americans.
Moreover, the president said in May, no strike can be authorized without “near
certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured” — a bar he described as
“the highest standard we can set.”
At the time, administration officials said that authority over the bulk of drone
strikes would gradually shift to the Pentagon from the C.I.A., a move officials
said was intended partly to lift the shroud of secrecy from the targeted killing
program.
But nearly seven months later, the C.I.A. still carries out a majority of drone
strikes in Yemen, with the remote-controlled aircraft taking off from a base in
the southern desert of Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon strikes, usually launched from
the Djibouti base, are cloaked in as much secrecy as those carried out by the
C.I.A.
“The contradictory reports about what happened on Dec. 12 underscore the
critical need for more transparency from the Obama administration and Yemeni
authorities about these strikes,” said Letta Tayler of Human Rights Watch, who
has done extensive research in Yemen about the drone strikes.
The very fact that the drone strike last week targeted an 11-vehicle convoy — a
much larger group than Al Qaeda would typically use — suggests that the new
American guidelines to rule out civilian casualties may not have been followed
in this case.
And the confusion over the victims’ identities raises questions about how the
United States government gathers intelligence in such a contested region and
with partners whose interests may differ sharply from those of the Obama
administration.
The area where the strike occurred, in the central province of Bayda, is almost
completely beyond the control of the Yemeni government, and is populated by
tribes whose recurring feuds can easily become tied up in the agendas of
outsiders.
Over the past two years, the Saudi government — which for decades has used cash
to maintain a network of influence in Yemen — has increased its payments to
tribal figures in Bayda to recruit informers and deter militants, according to
several tribal leaders in the area. This shadowy system appears to contribute to
the secretive process of information-gathering that determines targets for drone
strikes, a process in which Saudi and Yemeni officials cooperate with Americans.
But Saudi and American interests diverge in important ways in Yemen. Many of the
militants there who fight in Al Qaeda’s name are expatriate Saudis whose sole
goal is to bring down the Saudi government.
Because of the program’s secrecy, it is impossible to know whether the American
dependence on Saudi and Yemeni intelligence results in the killing of militants
who pose a danger only to Arab countries.
Some Yemeni officials have also hinted that the timing and target of the drone
strike last week may have been influenced by a devastating attack two weeks ago
on the Yemeni Defense Ministry in which 52 people were killed, including women,
children and doctors at the ministry’s hospital.
That attack ignited a desire for revenge in Yemen’s security establishment and
also damaged Al Qaeda’s reputation in Yemen, leaving the group hungry for
opportunities to change the subject. Both parties, in other words, may have had
reasons to manipulate the facts, both before and after the drone strike.
American officials will not say what they knew about the targets of the strike
last week. But in the past, American officials have sometimes appeared to be
misinformed about the accidental deaths of Yemeni civilians in drone strikes.
In one example from Aug. 1, a drone strike killed a 28-year-old man who happened
to hitch a ride with three men suspected to have been Qaeda members. According
to a number of witnesses, relatives and local police officials, the man, Saleh
Yaslim Saeed bin Ishaq, was waiting by a gas station late at night when the
three men stopped in a Land Cruiser and agreed to give him a ride.
Mr. Ishaq’s ID card and belongings were found in the burned wreckage of the
vehicle, and the local police — who confirmed that the other three dead men were
wanted militants — said he appeared to have been an innocent person whose
presence in the car was accidental.
When contacted about the strike, American officials said they were aware only of
the three militants killed. Yet the details of Mr. Ishaq’s death, and an image
of his ID card, were published at the time in newspapers and on websites in
Yemen.
Shuaib
al-Mosawa contributed reporting from Sana, Yemen.
Yemen Deaths Test Claims of New Drone Policy, NYT, 20.12.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/middleeast/
yemen-deaths-raise-questions-on-new-drone-policy.html
Pentagon Is Updating
Conflict
Rules in Cyberspace
June 27,
2013
The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON
— The Pentagon is updating its classified rules for warfare in cyberspace for
the first time in seven years, an acknowledgment of the growing threat posed by
computer-network attacks — and the need for the United States to improve its
defenses and increase the nimbleness of its response, the nation’s top military
officer said Thursday.
The officer, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also
said that, globally, new regulations were needed to govern actions by the world
community in cyberspace. He said that the Chinese did not believe that hacking
American systems violated any rules, since no rules existed.
Discussing efforts to improve the Pentagon’s tools for digital defense and
offense, General Dempsey said the military must be “able to operate at network
speed, rather than what I call swivel-chair speed.”
“Cyber has escalated from an issue of moderate concern to one of the most
serious threats to our national security,” he said. “We now live in a world of
weaponized bits and bytes, where an entire country can be disrupted by the click
of mouse.”
Under a presidential directive, the Pentagon developed “emergency procedures to
guide our response to imminent, significant cyberthreats,” and is “updating our
rules of engagement — the first update for cyber in seven years,” he said. This
effort has resulted in the creation of what General Dempsey called an
interagency “playbook for cyber.”
During a speech at the Brookings Institution, a policy research center, General
Dempsey said these new “standing rules of engagement” for military actions
remained in draft form, and had not yet been approved.
In his first major address on the new, virtual domain of computer warfare,
General Dempsey gave an outline of what a significant attack might look like,
and how the United States might respond.
If the nation’s critical infrastructure came under attack from poisonous code
over a computer network from overseas, the first effort would be gathering
information on the malware and the systems under attack. Network defenses would
be in place, as “our first instinct will be to pull up the drawbridge and
prevent the attack, that is to say, block or defend,” he said.
If the attack could not be repulsed, the new playbook calls for “active
defense,” which General Dempsey defined as a “proportional” effort “to go out
and disable the particular botnet that was attacking us.” It is notable that, in
this situation, the line between active defense and offense might be blurry.
“If it became something more widespread and we needed to do something beyond
that, it would require interagency consultation and authorities at a higher
level in order to do it,” he said. Although these plans are classified, his
statement indicated that the rules for responding in an escalated manner in
cyberspace, or with a conventional retaliation, would require decisions by the
civilian leadership.
General Dempsey’s speech drew a clear distinction between the nation’s two major
efforts in cyberspace. The military’s role is in defending computer networks
and, if so ordered by the president, carrying out offensive attacks. That is
related to, but separate from, the intelligence community’s efforts to gather
intelligence in cyberspace. Several of those highly classified
intelligence-gathering programs were exposed via leaks from a former contract
worker for the National Security Agency.
Assessing adversaries in cyberspace, General Dempsey said that China, in
particular, had chosen a niche in stealing intellectual property. “Their view is
that there are no rules of the road in cyber,” General Dempsey noted. He said
American and Chinese officials would meet over coming days to discuss ways to
“to establish some rules of the road, so that we don’t have these friction
points in our relationship.”
The military headquarters responsible for computer-network warfare, the United
States Cyber Command, will grow by 4,000 personnel with an additional investment
of $23 billion, General Dempsey said. (Cyber Command and the National Security
Agency are led by the same officer, Gen. Keith B. Alexander.)
“We are doing all of this not to address run-of-the mill cyberintrusions, but to
stop attacks of significant consequence — those that threaten life, limb and the
country’s core economic functioning,” General Dempsey said.
Pentagon Is Updating Conflict Rules in Cyberspace, NYT, 27.6.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/
pentagon-is-updating-conflict-rules-in-cyberspace.html
Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years
June 25,
2013
The New York Times
By ERIN BANCO
WASHINGTON
— Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said Tuesday that the Army would
institute the largest organizational change since World War II by eliminating
combat forces from 10 bases across the United States, part of a planned
reduction of 80,000 active-duty troops over the next five years.
The announcement supports the Army’s effort to downsize the active-duty force to
490,000 as the military winds down from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
cuts were a result of the 2011 Budget Control Act that required $487 billion in
military spending cuts over a decade. This is the fourth round of budget cuts
for the military since President Obama took office.
Under the plan, the Army will cut its brigade combat teams to 33 from 45 by 2017
at bases in Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, Texas
and Washington State. A brigade is roughly 3,500 to 5,000 people. Two additional
brigades in Germany, at Baumholder and Grafenwöhr, have already been scheduled
for elimination this year.
General Odierno said the cutbacks are only a precursor to further action. “There
is going to be another reduction,” he said at a Pentagon news conference. “There
is no away around it.”
The across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, which calls for some
$500 million in military spending reductions by 2022, could force the Army to
speed up its current plans for cuts.
General Odierno said that most of the troop reductions will occur with natural
attrition, but if “full sequestration occurs,” then the Army will have to cut
more officers, including colonels, lieutenant colonels and captains.
The cuts are certain to be unpopular in the communities where the bases are a
significant source of local jobs, although General Odierno said the Army had
tried to minimize the damage. In the past year, the Army has conducted an
extensive study on the economic impacts of the reductions and held community
meetings across the country.
“I know in the local communities it will have its impact,” General Odierno said.
But “we’ve tried to make it as small an impact as possible for as many
communities as we could.”
The brigades will be cut from Fort Drum, N.Y.; Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Knox,
Ky.; Fort Hood, Tex.; Fort Bliss, Tex.; Fort Bragg, N.C.; Fort Carson, Colo.;
Fort Riley, Kan.; Fort Stewart, Ga.; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.
Representative Howard P. McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee, said that he would take a close look at the
cuts. “As damaging as they are, these cuts don’t begin to reflect the crippling
damage sequestration will do to our armed forces and national security,” he said
in a statement. He added that “we all must understand that this is only the tip
of the iceberg, much deeper cuts are still to come.”
Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Armed
Services Committee, also warned about sequestration. “Given the drawdown in
Afghanistan, the Army can manage this reduction in end strength,” he said in a
statement. But, he said: “The real hazard to military effectiveness will persist
as long as Congress fails to act on sequestration. If sequestration is not
removed, then more extensive force structure changes will need to be made.”
Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years, NYT, 25.6.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/
army-to-cut-its-forces-by-80000-in-5-years.html
Guilty Plea by Sergeant
in
Killing of Civilians
June 5,
2013
The New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
JOINT BASE
LEWIS-McCHORD, Wash. — Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, the enigmatic figure at the
center of the worst American war crime in recent memory, admitted for the first
time on Wednesday deliberately killing 16 Afghan civilians last year, most of
them women and children.
He took the oath in a military court, swore to tell the truth, and conceded in
crisp “yes sirs” and “no sirs” every major charge against him — that he shot
some victims, and shot and burned others, and did so with complete awareness
that he was acting on his own, without compunction or mercy or under orders by a
superior Army officer. The guilty plea removes the possibility of the death
penalty in the case.
But the curtain of enigma about the man himself, and his descent into darkness
and murder on the night of the killings, remained firmly in place. The millions
of Americans who have pondered the mechanisms of atrocity since the attacks in
March 2012 were left in the dark. Even Sergeant Bales himself, finally pressed
by the presiding judge, Col. Jeffery Nance, to explain more deeply what
happened, seemed baffled.
“What was your reason for killing them?” Colonel Nance finally asked.
Sergeant Bales, 39, seated at the defense table in his blue service uniform,
hands clasped before him — thumbs often nervously twitching — said he had asked
himself the same question “a million times.”
“There’s not a good reason in this world for why I did the horrible things I
did,” he said.
Asked by Colonel Nance whether he had poured kerosene on some of his victims and
set them on fire as the charges against him specified, Sergeant Bales said he
remembered seeing a kerosene lamp in one of the village compounds, and later
found matches in his pocket. But bodies themselves on fire? He did not remember
that, he said. Then he conceded that the cumulative evidence was clear that it
must have happened, and that he must, in fact, have done it.
“It’s the only thing that makes sense, sir,” Sergeant Bales said.
Asked by the judge about his illegal use of steroids, another charge Sergeant
Bales admitted to on Wednesday, the defendant said he had wanted to get
stronger, or “huge and jacked,” as he put in an interview quoted by the court.
Asked by the judge what other effects the drugs might have had, Sergeant Bales
said: “Sir, it definitely increased my irritability and anger.”
Whether those mood shifts played into the crime was unaddressed.
The murders, in two poor villages in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province,
had global repercussions. United States-Afghan relations shuddered as villages
in the area erupted in protest. Critics of America’s decade of conflict in the
region since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, seized on the stresses
experienced in the war by soldiers like Sergeant Bales, who was on his fourth
overseas deployment in 10 years.
Victims testified in a pretrial, or Article 32, hearing at the base last fall
that a figure, cloaked in darkness with blindingly bright lights on his weapon,
burst into their homes early on the morning of March 11, 2012. In gripping
testimony via live video feed from Afghanistan, they described a man they could
not identify who killed people in their beds, leaving brains on pillows.
Fellow soldiers told the court in the Article 32 hearing that they had been
drinking together earlier that night, against regulations, and that Sergeant
Bales had later walked back into the camp, wearing a cape, his clothes spotted
with blood.
But until Wednesday, when Sergeant Bales used phrases like, “then I did kill her
by shooting her,” over and over in numbing repetition, the figure at the center
of the case was described only obliquely and in shadow, from those who saw him
or suffered at his hands. And even then, in the parade of mostly monotone guilty
admissions, anyone waiting for tears of regret or remorse was disappointed.
Even though Wednesday’s hearing removed the death penalty from consideration in
the case, Sergeant Bales still faces a sentencing trial, scheduled for August,
to determine whether he will receive life in prison with the possibility of
parole, or life without parole.
At that time, Sergeant Bales and his lawyers could present evidence of
extenuating or mitigating circumstances, and Sergeant Bales would have an
opportunity to testify, the judge said. That phase of the case is also likely to
bring up questions of the defendant’s life, character and mental states, and the
stresses of the wars he helped fight.
During his deployments, for example, Sergeant Bales suffered foot and head
injuries and saw fellow soldiers badly wounded, defense lawyers and military
officials have said. His lawyers have also said he had suffered from
post-traumatic stress and a traumatic brain injury.
But his past includes an arrest on a misdemeanor charge of assault on a woman,
which was dropped after he completed anger management counseling. Testimony
about his drug and alcohol use in a combat zone could play out further there as
well, which could open up questions about his mental state at the time of the
murders, but also about the environment and culture in the military where that
drug use took place.
Guilty Plea by Sergeant in Killing of Civilians, NYT, 5.6.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/sergeant-robert-bales-testimony.html
The Military’s Sexual Assault Crisis
May 7, 2013
The New York Times
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Transforming the military’s entrenched culture of sexual violence will require
new approaches and a much stronger effort than what the Pentagon has done so
far.
That is the depressing truth of a Defense Department study released on Tuesday
estimating that about 26,000 people in the military were sexually assaulted in
the 2012 fiscal year, up from about 19,000 in the same period a year before.
Those who thought that the crisis could not get any worse have been proved
wrong.
As in other years, only a small fraction of assaults were reported — 3,374 in
2012 compared with 3,192 in 2011. The study, based on anonymous surveys,
suggests that the great majority of sexual assault victims do not report the
attacks for fear of retribution or lack of faith that the military will
prosecute these crimes.
Just two days before the report’s release, the officer in charge of sexual
assault prevention programs for the Air Force, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, was
arrested in Arlington County, Va., and charged with sexual battery, compounding
the sense that the military is incapable of addressing this crisis.
“This arrest speaks volumes about the status and effectiveness of the
department’s efforts to address the plague of sexual assaults in the military,”
said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, on Tuesday in referring to the Defense Department.
Responding to Colonel Krusinski’s arrest on battery charges in the attack of a
woman in a parking lot on Sunday, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat
and former prosecutor, expressed skepticism that “somebody could be accused of
that behavior with a complete stranger and not have anything in his file.”
She is holding up the nomination of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of
the Air Force’s Space Command, while seeking more information about General
Helms’s decision to overturn a jury conviction in a sexual assault case last
year.
The new Pentagon report and Colonel Krusinski’s arrest have shown the Air
Force’s assault prevention efforts to be an absurd joke. Whatever steps taken in
the past year to reduce rampant assault are plainly inadequate.
The issue is what is to be done now. While no single program can provide a
cure-all, changes like offering all assault victims support in the form of a
special victims’ counsel — as Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and
Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, have proposed — make sense.
The most promising proposal comes from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of
New York. She plans to introduce legislation next week that fixes a critical
flaw in the military’s handling of assault cases. The measure would replace the
current system of adjudicating sexual assault by taking the cases outside a
victim’s chain of command. It would end the power of senior officers with no
legal training but lots of conflicts of interest to decide whether
courts-martial can be brought against subordinates and to toss out a jury
verdict once it is rendered.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel favors eliminating the power of senior officers to
overturn jury findings in the most serious cases, but, so far, he has not
endorsed the Gillibrand bill, which would move the authority both to investigate
and prosecute offenses to impartial military prosecutors. His reluctance is
troubling. It is his job to fix the situation. Halfway reform won’t do.
Asked about the assault numbers on Tuesday, President Obama said military
personnel who engage in assaults are “betraying the uniform they’re wearing.” He
said he told Mr. Hagel that “we have to exponentially step up our game to go at
this thing hard.” That is the right message, but actually changing the system
will require presidential leadership.
The Military’s Sexual Assault Crisis, NYT, 7.5.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/
opinion/the-pentagons-sexual-assault-crisis.html
Sexual
Assaults in Military
Raise
Alarm in Washington
May 7, 2013
The New York Times
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
WASHINGTON
— The problem of sexual assault in the military leapt to the forefront in
Washington on Tuesday as the Pentagon released a survey estimating that 26,000
people in the armed forces were sexually assaulted last year, up from 19,000 in
2010, and an angry President Obama and Congress demanded action.
The study, based on a confidential survey sent to 108,000 active-duty service
members, was released two days after the officer in charge of sexual assault
prevention programs for the Air Force was arrested and charged with sexual
battery for grabbing a woman’s breasts and buttocks in an Arlington, Va.,
parking lot.
At a White House news conference, Mr. Obama expressed exasperation with the
Pentagon’s attempts to bring sexual assault under control.
“The bottom line is, I have no tolerance for this,” Mr. Obama said in answer to
a question about the survey. “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff,
they’ve got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions,
court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
The president said he had ordered Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “to step up our
game exponentially” to prevent sex crimes and said he wanted military victims of
sexual assault to know that “I’ve got their backs.”
In a separate report made public on Tuesday, the military recorded 3,374 sexual
assault reports last year, up from 3,192 in 2011, suggesting that many victims
continue not to report the crimes for fear of retribution or a lack of justice
under the department’s system for prosecution.
The numbers come as the Pentagon prepares to integrate women formally into what
had been all-male domains of combat, making the effective monitoring, policing
and prosecuting of sexual misconduct all the more pressing.
Pentagon officials said nearly 26,000 active-duty men and women had responded to
the sexual assault survey. Of those, 6.1 percent of women and 1.2 percent of men
said they had experienced sexual assault in the past year, which the survey
defined as everything from rape to “unwanted sexual touching” of genitalia,
breasts, buttocks or inner thighs.
From those percentages, the Pentagon extrapolated that 12,100 of the 203,000
women on active duty and 13,900 of the 1.2 million men on active duty had
experienced some form of sexual assault. In 2010, a similar Pentagon survey
found that 4.4 percent of active-duty women and fewer than 0.9 percent of
active-duty men had experienced sexual assault.
Pentagon officials could not explain the jump in assaults of women, although
they believed that more victims, both men and women, were making the choice to
come forward. In the general population, about 0.2 percent of American women
over age 12 were victims of sexual assault in 2010, the most recent year for
which data is available, according to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
In response to the report, Mr. Hagel said at a news conference on Tuesday that
the Pentagon was instituting a new plan that orders the service chiefs to
incorporate sexual assault programs into their commands.
“What’s going on is just not acceptable,” Mr. Hagel said. “We will get control
of this.”
The report quickly caught fire on Capitol Hill, where women on the Senate Armed
Services Committee expressed outrage at two Air Force officers who suggested
that they were making progress in ending the problem in their branch.
“If the man in charge for the Air Force in preventing sexual assaults is being
alleged to have committed a sexual assault this weekend,” said Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, “obviously there’s a failing in training and
understanding of what sexual assault is, and how corrosive and damaging it is to
good order and discipline.”
Ms. Gillibrand, who nearly shouted as she addressed Michael B. Donley, the
secretary of the Air Force, said that the continued pattern of sexual assault
was “undermining the credibility of the greatest military force in the world.”
She and some other members of the committee are seeking to have all sex
offenders in the military discharged from service, and she would like to replace
the current system of adjudicating sexual assault by taking it outside the chain
of command. She is particularly focused on decisions, including one made
recently by an Air Force senior officer, to reverse guilty verdicts in sexual
assault cases with little explanation.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat who is also on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, is holding up the nomination of that Air Force officer, Lt.
Gen. Susan J. Helms, to be vice commander of the Air Force’s Space Command. Ms.
McCaskill said she wanted additional information about General Helms’s decision
to overturn a jury conviction in a sexual assault case last year.
Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, told the committee at the
same hearing on Tuesday that he was “appalled” by the conduct and the arrest of
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the Air Force officer accused of sexual battery on
Sunday. The police say that Colonel Krusinski was drunk when he approached the
woman in the parking lot and that the victim was ultimately able to fend him off
and call 911.
Mr. Hagel called Mr. Donley on Monday evening to express his “outrage and
disgust” over the matter, a Pentagon statement said.
Ms. McCaskill was particularly critical of Colonel Krusinski as well as the Air
Force for placing him in charge of sexual assault prevention. “It is hard for me
to believe that somebody could be accused of that behavior with a complete
stranger and not have anything in his file,” she said.
While Mr. Hagel and others in the military seem open to changes to the system
that allows cases to be overturned, they remained chilly to the idea of taking
military justice out of the chain of command.
“It is my strong belief that the ultimate authority has to remain within the
command structure,” Mr. Hagel said, which is almost certain to meet with
objections as the issue continues to come under the scrutiny of the Armed
Services Committee.
Under Mr. Hagel’s plan, the military would seek to quickly study and come up
with ways to hold commanders more accountable for sexual assault. The chiefs of
the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commandant of the Marines have until Nov. 1
to report their findings. Mr. Hagel also directed the services to visually
inspect department workplaces, including the service academies, for potentially
offensive or degrading materials, by July 1.
Sarah Wheaton
contributed reporting.
Sexual Assaults in Military Raise Alarm in Washington, NYT, 7.5.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/
pentagon-study-sees-sharp-rise-in-sexual-assaults.html
America’s Military Injustice
May 7, 2013
The New York Times
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
Along with a boosted Buick LeSabre, another incident listed on a crime report
Sunday in Arlington County, Va., was a creepy attack by a man on a woman.
“On May 5 at 12:35 a.m., a drunken male subject approached a female victim in a
parking lot and grabbed her breasts and buttocks,” the report read. “The victim
fought the suspect off as he attempted to touch her again and alerted police.
Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington, Va., was arrested and charged with sexual
battery.”
Krusinksi’s mug shot, showing scarlet scratches on his face, is a portrait in
misery.
He knew his arrest on charges of groping a stranger would send the capital
reeling and his career at the nearby Pentagon spiraling. The Air Force
lieutenant colonel charged with sexual battery was the officer in charge of
sexual assault prevention programs for the Air Force. (He had just finished his
sexual assault victim training.)
There was a fox-in-the-henhouse echo of Clarence Thomas, who Anita Hill said
sexually harassed her when he was the nation’s top enforcer of laws against
workplace sexual harassment.
Senator Jay Rockefeller issued a white-hot statement, calling Krusinski’s arrest
“further evidence that the military isn’t taking the issue of sexual assault
seriously,” and “a stain on the military” that “should shake us to our core.”
President Obama was also lacerating on the subject of the Krusinski arrest and
the cases of two Air Force lieutenant generals who set aside sexual assault
convictions after jury trials.
He said training and awareness programs masking indifference will no longer
stand: “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held
accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired,
dishonorably discharged — period.”
It has been a bad week for the hidebound defenders of a hopelessly antiquated
military justice system that views prosecution decisions in all cases, including
rape and sexual assault, as the private preserve of commanders rather than
lawyers.
“They are dying a thousand deaths,” said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military
justice at Yale Law School. CAAFlog, the leading military justice blog, called
it “the death knell” for the current system, at least for sexual assault cases.
During the Thomas-Hill hearings, many powerful men here — even ones defending
Hill publicly — privately assumed that she was somehow complicit in encouraging
Thomas’s vulgar behavior. Feminists ranted “they just don’t get it” so often
that it became a grating cliché.
Yet, 22 years later, during another Senate hearing on Tuesday where the topic of
sexual transgression flared, it became clear that, as the California
Congresswoman Jackie Speier told me afterward, “people in authority just don’t
get it.”
Gen. Mark Welsh, the chief of staff for the Air Force, shocked the women on the
Senate Armed Services Committee when he testified that part of the problem in
combatting “The Invisible War,” as the Oscar-nominated documentary feature on
the epidemic of rape in the military was titled, is that young women who enter
the military have been raised in a society with a “hook-up mentality.”
“We have got to change the culture once they arrive,” the general said.
Hook-ups may be stupid, but they are consensual.
“To dismiss violent rapes as part of the hook-up culture shows a complete lack
of understanding,” a fiery Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York told me.
“We’re not talking about a date gone badly. We’re talking about criminal
behavior by predators who often stalk their victims in advance.”
The hook-up comparison was especially jarring in light of the release of a
stunning Pentagon study estimating that 26,000 men and women in the military
were sexually assaulted in the 2012 fiscal year, a 37 percent increase from the
same period the year before. Only a small number of incidents — 3,374 — were
reported, showing that victims are still afraid of payback or perverted justice.
And a mere 238 assailants were convicted.
Wired.com reported that troops at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina were
issued a brochure advising potential victims of sexual assault that it may be
more “advisable to submit than resist.”
It was the sort of rare confluence of events that can actually lead to change
here, especially because it’s a nonpartisan issue and because the Senate looks
very different than it did during the Thomas-Hill hearings. Three of the six
Senate Armed Services subcommittees are now led by women.
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a former prosecutor who is one of seven
women (five of them lawyers) on the Armed Services Committee, has held up the
nomination of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force’s Space
Command until she investigates why Helms overturned a conviction in a sexual
assault case.
“You don’t get to decide who’s telling the truth and supplant the judgment of
the jury you handpicked if you weren’t in the courtroom observing the
witnesses,” Senator McCaskill said. “You’ve got to put systems in place where
you catch these cowards committing crimes and you put them in prison.”
The military brass cossetting predators are on notice. The women of Congress are
on the case.
America’s Military Injustice, NYT, 7.5.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/opinion/dowd-americas-military-injustice.html
U.S. Bolstering Missile Defense
to Deter
North Korea’s Threats
March 15,
2013
The New York Times
By THOM SHANKER, DAVID E. SANGER and MARTIN FACKLER
WASHINGTON
— The Pentagon will spend $1 billion to deploy additional ballistic missile
interceptors along the Pacific Coast to counter the growing reach of North
Korea’s weapons, a decision accelerated by Pyongyang’s recent belligerence and
indications that Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, is resisting China’s
efforts to restrain him.
The new deployments, announced by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday, will
increase the number of ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska to 44
from 30 by 2017.
The missiles have a mixed record in testing, hitting dummy targets just 50
percent of the time, but officials said Friday’s announcement was intended not
merely to present a credible deterrence to the North’s limited intercontinental
ballistic missile arsenal. They said it is also meant to show South Korea and
Japan that the United States is willing to commit resources to deterring the
North and, at the same time, warn Beijing that it must restrain its ally or face
an expanding American military focus on Asia.
“There’s been a quickening pace of provocations,” said one senior administration
official, describing actions and words from North Korea and its new leader, Mr.
Kim. “But the real accelerant was the fact that the North Koreans seemed more
unmoored from their Chinese handlers than even we had feared.”
Although American and South Korean intelligence officials doubt the North is
close to being able to follow through on a nuclear strike, or that it would even
try, given its almost certain destruction, analysts say the country’s aggressive
behavior is an important and worrying sign of changing calculations in the
North.
In interviews over recent days, Obama administration officials described
internal debates at the White House and the Pentagon about how strongly to react
to the recent provocations. It is a delicate balance, they said, of defending
against real potential threats while avoiding giving the North Koreans what one
official called “the satisfaction of seeming to make the rest of the world
jumpy.”
In announcing the deployments at a Pentagon news conference, Mr. Hagel cited
North Korea’s third test of nuclear weapons technology last month, the
successful test of a long-range missile that sent a satellite into space, and
the discovery that a new generation of mobile missiles appeared closer to
development.
“We will strengthen our homeland defense, maintain our commitments to our allies
and partners, and make clear to the world that the United States stands firm
against aggression,” Mr. Hagel said.
All 14 of the new interceptors will be placed in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska,
where 26 interceptors are already deployed. Four others are at Vandenberg Air
Force Base in California.
North Korea has always been an unpredictable, provocative dictatorship. But even
by its own standards, the isolated Communist regime’s recent decision to nullify
a wartime cease-fire and weeks of increasingly hyperbolic warnings, including of
a pre-emptive nuclear strike, appear to have crossed new and dangerous lines.
Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
also spoke at the Pentagon on Friday and described how the United States was
deliberately building a two-tiered system of deterrence against North Korea.
The United States will “put the mechanics in place to deny any potential North
Korean objectives to launch a missile to the United States, but also to impose
costs upon them if they do,” Admiral Winnefeld said.
In an unusually pointed warning to the new North Korean leader, Admiral
Winnefeld added, “We believe that this young lad ought to be deterred by that —
and if he’s not, we’ll be ready.”
The arguments for bolstering the limited missile defense were symbolic of the
larger problem.
The antimissile systems are considered less than reliable, and some
administration officials were reluctant to pour additional resources into
deploying more of the existing technology.
But in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. C. Robert Kehler,
the commander of the United States Strategic Command, made clear they serve a
larger purpose. “Deterring North Korea from acting irrationally is our No. 1
priority,” he said. He acknowledged that there were doubts that the 30 existing
antimissile systems would be sufficient, and added that an additional site in
the United States, on the East Coast, may be needed to deter Iran.
But the new deployment is also intended to send a signal to China, which tried
but failed to block the more recent nuclear test, to rein in the North. “We want
to make it clear that there’s a price to be paid for letting the North Koreans
stay on the current path,” a senior official said Friday.
The North’s new leader, some analysts say, is intensifying the threats because
he has failed to get the Obama administration and its South Korean allies to
return to an established pattern in which the North provoked and the allies
followed with much-needed economic aid in return for Pyongyang’s promises to
finally halt its nuclear weapons program.
But a growing number of experts believe North Korea also views its recent
advances in missile and nuclear technology as game changers that will allow it
to build the nuclear arsenal it desperately wants, both as a deterrent against
better-armed enemies and a cudgel to extract more concessions and possibly even
international recognition.
“Developing nuclear weapons gives North Korea a chance to turn the tables in one
stroke,” said Cheong Seong-chang, an expert on North Korea at the Sejong
Institute. “They can get around the weakness of their economy and their outdated
conventional weapons.”
The short-term risk, analysts say, is that the North’s chest-thumping will lead
to another round of limited conventional military skirmishes with the South that
could get out of control and, in the worst case, draw in the United States. With
a new leader in South Korea under political pressure to stand up to her
country’s longtime enemy, the risks are especially high.
The main newspaper of North Korea’s ruling party, Rodong Sinmun, recently gave
the North’s own explanation for its actions. “Let the American imperialists and
their followers know!” the paper said. “We are not a pushover like Iraq or
Libya.”
Some missile-defense experts express deep skepticism about the capability of the
ground-based interceptors deployed in California and Alaska.
“It remains unclear whether these ground-based interceptors can work
effectively, and they should be subjected to much more rigorous field testing
before taxpayer resources are spent on a system that is ineffective,” said Tom
Z. Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group
here.
James N. Miller, the Pentagon’s under secretary for policy, said the new
missiles would have to show success before they would be deployed. “We will
continue to stick with our ‘fly before we buy’ approach,” Mr. Miller said,
citing a successful test as recently as Jan. 26. George Lewis, an antimissile
missile expert at Cornell University, said 15 flight tests of the defensive
system have tried to hit targets, and only eight have succeeded.
The Defense Department’s interceptors in California and Alaska are to blunt a
long-range missile threat from North Korea. The United States also deploys
Patriot Advanced Capability batteries in South Korea for defense of targets
there, and the South fields an older model of the Patriot.
Japan is developing its own layered missile-defense system, which includes Aegis
warships and Patriot systems as well.
The United States deploys one advanced TPY-2 missile-defense tracking radar in
Japan to enhance early warning across the region and toward the West Coast, and
it has reached agreement to deploy a second.
And the Navy also recently bolstered its deployment of ballistic missile defense
warships in waters off the Korean Peninsula, although the vessels were sent as
part of an exercise even before the increase in caustic language from the North.
As part of the Foal Eagle military exercise with South Korea, the Navy has four
Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers in the region.
Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Martin Fackler
from Seoul, South Korea. Choe Sang-hun contributed reporting from Seoul, and
William J. Broad from New York.
U.S. Bolstering Missile Defense to Deter North Korea’s Threats, NYT, 15.3.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/asia/us-to-bolster-missile-defense-against-north-korea.html
A Tax to Pay for War
February 10, 2013
The New York Times
By R. RUSSELL RUMBAUGH
WASHINGTON
NOW that Congress has discarded the idea that taxes can never be raised, we must
change how we pay for the wars we ask our military to fight. We should institute
a war tax.
With leading officials calling for action in Syria, and the American military
providing support for France’s intervention in Mali, the need for such a tax is
urgent. And President Obama’s call for tax reform as the next round of budget
negotiations begins offers a perfect opportunity to enact it.
Military spending has been declining since 2009, easing the conflict between
pursuing our national security interests and solving our fiscal crisis. But if
we undertake new military interventions, that tension will come roaring back.
Those who look at our military spending as a percent of gross domestic product
and argue that we could spend more are right. At our current level of $646
billion, we are spending roughly 4 percent of G.D.P. on national defense, well
below cold war averages. The missing part of their argument is whether we can
afford to pay for it now or would have to borrow, adding to the national debt.
After all, war spending — like all government spending — wrecks public finances
only when more money is spent than is brought in.
This simple equation is nothing new. Three years ago, the Senate Budget
Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment requiring that wars be paid for. The
Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission and Senator Al Franken, Democrat of
Minnesota, both proposed doing much the same thing. None of these proposals
resolved the question of whether to pay for future wars through spending cuts or
raising more revenue. Now that Congress has finally passed legislation letting
taxes increase, we must make a choice and require a tax surcharge to pay for any
military operation.
War traditionally has motivated major changes in tax policy. The Civil War
brought the first income tax. World War I made the federal income tax permanent.
World War II brought tax withholding. In 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War,
the United States ran a budget surplus because of a tax surcharge Congress
forced President Lyndon B. Johnson to accept.
Today’s budget negotiations offer a similar opportunity to make a surcharge
permanent. President Obama called for counting as savings the money that will
not be spent as the war in Afghanistan winds down. Many decried the scheme as
playing with funny money because he plans to exit Afghanistan in 2014 anyway;
the savings only exist because of an accounting trick in Congressional
budgeting. But if those savings were associated with an actual policy change,
they would start looking more real.
Since the Budget Control Act already caps military spending, there is an easy
way to implement the surcharge: any spending over the caps would require it. If
we felt the need to use the military and could do so under the spending caps, as
the Obama administration did in 2011 responding to the earthquake in Japan and
the uprising in Libya, no surcharge would be necessary. But if military action
required supplemental financing, any amount over the caps would be offset with
new revenue raised by an automatic surcharge on taxes.
By tying military action to additional revenue, the president would actually
have a freer hand in deciding when to use force. Every argument the Obama
administration makes for military action would explicitly include a call for
increased taxes, forcing the question of whether the stakes in the military
situation are worth the cost. If the American people agree they are worth it,
the president will get both the political support and financing he needs.
Syria is the most immediate example. We now know that some top officials have
argued for arming the rebels, as the secretaries of state and defense and the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did last year. Others argue for an even
more robust military response, while detractors insist that we should learn from
Iraq and not get involved at all.
Such decisions should not be divorced from economic considerations, but neither
should we allow our finances to prevent us from pursuing vital American security
interests. Putting in place a permanent tax surcharge to pay for wars would
ensure that we could achieve our interests throughout the world without further
worsening our finances.
If military action is worth our troops’ blood, it should be worth our treasure,
too — not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every
American.
R. Russell Rumbaugh, an Army veteran and a former analyst
at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Senate Budget
Committee,
is a senior associate at the Stimson Center,
studying federal spending on military and foreign affairs.
A Tax to Pay for War, NYT, 10.2.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/a-tax-to-pay-for-war.html
U.S. Weighs Base for Spy Drones in North Africa
January 28,
2013
The New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON
— The United States military is preparing to establish a drone base in northwest
Africa so that it can increase surveillance missions on the local affiliate of
Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups that American and other Western
officials say pose a growing menace to the region.
For now, officials say they envision flying only unarmed surveillance drones
from the base, though they have not ruled out conducting missile strikes at some
point if the threat worsens.
The move is an indication of the priority Africa has become in American
antiterrorism efforts. The United States military has a limited presence in
Africa, with only one permanent base, in the country of Djibouti, more than
3,000 miles from Mali, where French and Malian troops are now battling
Qaeda-backed fighters who control the northern part of Mali.
A new drone base in northwest Africa would join a constellation of small
airstrips in recent years on the continent, including in Ethiopia, for
surveillance missions flown by drones or turboprop planes designed to look like
civilian aircraft.
If the base is approved, the most likely location for it would be in Niger, a
largely desert nation on the eastern border of Mali. The American military’s
Africa Command, or Africom, is also discussing options for the base with other
countries in the region, including Burkina Faso, officials said.
The immediate impetus for a drone base in the region is to provide surveillance
assistance to the French-led operation in Mali. “This is directly related to the
Mali mission, but it could also give Africom a more enduring presence for
I.S.R.,” one American military official said Sunday, referring to intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance.
A handful of unarmed Predator drones would carry out surveillance missions in
the region and fill a desperate need for more detailed information on a range of
regional threats, including militants in Mali and the unabated flow of fighters
and weapons from Libya. American military commanders and intelligence analysts
complain that such information has been sorely lacking.
The Africa Command’s plan still needs approval from the Pentagon and eventually
from the White House, as well as from officials in Niger. American military
officials said that they were still working out some details, and that no final
decision had been made. But in Niger on Monday, the two countries reached a
status-of-forces agreement that clears the way for greater American military
involvement in the country and provides legal protection to American troops
there, including any who might deploy to a new drone base.
The plan could face resistance from some in the White House who are wary of
committing any additional American forces to a fight against a poorly understood
web of extremist groups in North Africa.
If approved, the base could ultimately have as many as 300 United States
military and contractor personnel, but it would probably begin with far fewer
people than that, military officials said.
Some Africa specialists expressed concern that setting up a drone base in Niger
or in a neighboring country, even if only to fly surveillance missions, could
alienate local people who may associate the distinctive aircraft with deadly
attacks in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.
Officials from Niger did not respond to e-mails over the weekend about the plan,
but its president, Mahamadou Issoufou, has expressed a willingness to establish
what he called in a recent interview “a long-term strategic relationship with
the U.S.”
“What’s happening in northern Mali is a big concern for us because what’s
happening in northern Mali can also happen to us,” Mr. Issoufou said in an
interview at the presidential palace in Niamey, Niger’s capital, on Jan. 10, the
day before French troops swept into Mali to blunt the militant advance.
Gen. Carter F. Ham, the head of the Africa Command, who visited Niger this month
to discuss expanding the country’s security cooperation with the United States,
declined to comment on the proposed drone base, saying in an e-mail that the
subject was “too operational for me to confirm or deny.”
Discussions about the drone base come at a time when the French operation in
Mali and a militant attack on a remote gas field in the Algerian desert that
left at least 37 foreign hostages, including 3 Americans, dead have thrown a
spotlight on Al Qaeda’s franchise in the region, Al Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb, and forced Western governments and their allies in the region to
accelerate efforts to combat it.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is chairwoman of the
Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that in the
wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and the turmoil of the Arab Spring, there was
“an effort to establish a beachhead for terrorism, a joining together of
terrorist organizations.”
According to current and former American government officials, as well as
classified government cables made public by the group WikiLeaks, the
surveillance missions flown by American turboprop planes in northern Mali have
had only a limited effect.
Flown mainly from Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, the missions have
faced stiff challenges as militant leaders have taken greater precautions in
using electronic communications and have taken more care not to disclose
delicate information that could be monitored, like their precise locations.
General Ham said in an interview on his visit to Niger that it had been
difficult for American intelligence agencies to collect consistent, reliable
intelligence about what was going on in northern Mali, as well as in other
largely ungoverned parts of the sub-Saharan region.
“It’s tough to penetrate,” he said. “It’s tough to get access for platforms that
can collect. It’s an extraordinarily tough environment for human intelligence,
not just ours but the neighboring countries as well.”
The State Department has been extraordinarily wary of allowing drones to operate
in the region, fearful of criticism that the United States is trying to
militarize parts of Africa as it steps up its campaign to hunt down Qaeda-linked
extremists in Somalia, as well as those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012,
attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
American drones regularly conduct surveillance flights over Somalia and
occasionally launch airstrikes against people suspected of being members of the
Shabab, a militant group linked to Al Qaeda. General Ham, who will be retiring
from his command this spring after nearly 40 years in the Army, has been warning
that the United States needs more and better surveillance tools in Africa to
track the growing threats there.
“Without operating locations on the continent, I.S.R. capabilities would be
curtailed, potentially endangering U.S. security,” General Ham said in a
statement to the House Armed Services Committee last March. “Given the vast
geographic space and diversity in threats, the command requires increased I.S.R.
assets to adequately address the security challenges on the continent.”
U.S. Weighs Base for Spy Drones in North Africa, NYT, 28.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/us-plans-base-for-surveillance-drones-in-northwest-africa.html
Chuck Hagel’s War
January 20,
2013
The New York Times
By BILL KELLER
Almost
everybody who weighs in on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next
secretary of defense, pro or con, begins by genuflecting to his experience in
Vietnam, as if it goes without saying that this is a compelling asset for the
civilian who oversees the Pentagon. I’m going to be an exception.
Hagel’s wartime service, which earned him awards for valor and two purple
hearts, was unquestionably honorable. No doubt he has a deeper awareness than
most people that wars are messy, which is not without value. His tour as an
infantry squad leader, even more than his Republican Party card, provides useful
political cover for a president who favors a less interventionist foreign policy
and a smaller defense budget. But the notion that experience of war imparts a
special wisdom is one of our enduring fallacies.
Just to be clear, I think the president is entitled to pick a defense secretary
who is compatible with his views and has his trust. Besides, as Hillary Clinton
and Bob Gates can testify, under this president foreign and defense matters are
run from the White House. The new secretaries of state and defense will probably
be, as their predecessors have been, more executors than authors of policy.
And most of the arguments for voting against Hagel’s confirmation are flimsy at
best. He once described Israel’s friends in Washington as “the Jewish lobby?” So
does the Israeli press. He’s in favor of talking to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah?
Great. As another defense minister, Moshe Dayan, once observed: “If you want to
make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Hagel’s
attitudes toward gay rights and women’s freedom are — or were, back when he was
a senator from a red state — unenlightened? I would bet that, like most of us,
he has evolved, but in any case those are issues the president decides. The most
small-minded reasons for opposing Hagel’s confirmation are the unspoken,
partisan ones: the hope of embarrassing the president, or the urge to pay Hagel
back for his support of the Democrat Bob Kerrey, a fellow Vietnam vet, in last
year’s Nebraska Senate race.
There is no end of bad reasons to vote no. But among the reasons to vote yes,
the fact that Hagel has tasted combat should be regarded with skepticism. You
hope that he brings to the job a non-bullying management style, strategic
judgment, political dexterity and an open mind, but none of those are qualities
likely to have been perfected in the jungles of Vietnam. It’s even worth
considering whether his military service could be a handicap.
The last time I wrestled with this issue was about 10 years ago when John Kerry
was contemplating a run for the presidency and calculating how heavily to
exploit his wartime command of a riverboat in Vietnam. (In the end, I’d say he
overplayed it — remember “reporting for duty”? — and the emphasis left him more
vulnerable to the infamous swift-boat smear.)
Whether or not Senator Kerry’s Vietnam experience brought him wisdom, I decided
at the time, was better judged by examining his wisdom than his experience. A
decade later that observation is relevant again as Kerry awaits his own hearings
on his nomination to be secretary of state. If you had only his voting record on
recent American wars to go by, you’d be hard pressed to detect any coherent
wisdom of the battlefield. His service in Vietnam did not keep Kerry from
casting two big, politically expedient — and, in hindsight, misguided — votes on
Iraq: in 1991 against the first President Bush’s justified war to drive Iraq out
of Kuwait, and in 2002 in favor of authorizing the second President Bush’s Iraq
folly. Fortunately for Kerry (and for us), his work as chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and his role as President Obama’s informal emissary
on missions to Afghanistan and Pakistan have been more impressive.
Hagel’s voting record on military affairs, like Kerry’s, sometimes seems less a
matter of considered judgment than political reflex. Along with Kerry, Hagel
voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing war against Iraq. But in 2007 he
co-sponsored a resolution against the troop surge. The surge succeeded well
enough that it enabled Obama to withdraw from Iraq without shame. Considering
Hagel’s call on that issue, one military analyst I checked with speculated that
“perhaps the mishandling of Vietnam blinded him to the fact that other wars
could be done right.” In any case, the record makes you wonder whether a sense
of war that was imprinted on Hagel 45 years ago will be all that helpful in
waging new and different wars.
The deference to the military service credential is bipartisan. Hawks complain
when a president who never put on a uniform presumes to override the generals on
spending or, say, the size of a troop deployment. Doves protest when leaders
without war experience rattle their swords. Thus when the nation was led into
Iraq by George Bush and Dick Cheney, a president who spent the Vietnam years at
home in the National Guard and a vice president who said he “had other
priorities” during that war, there were jeers of “chicken hawk!” And one antiwar
senator — yes, that would be Chuck Hagel — proposed that a hawkish Pentagon
adviser who was gung-ho to invade Iraq should be drafted as part of the first
wave into Baghdad.
“The horror of it, the pain of it, the suffering of it,” Hagel told a Veterans
History Project interviewer in 2002. “People just don’t understand it unless
they’ve been through it. There’s no glory, only suffering in war.”
If you follow the logic far enough, it takes you to a glib notion: that anyone
who has not seen combat and is not putting his own life on the line is less
deserving of a voice. Which, by the way, would pretty much disqualify an entire
gender from the discussion.
Back then, Eliot Cohen, a neocon military historian with whom I do not often
agree, wrote the following about the combat credential: “According to this view,
to fill a senior policy position during a war one would of course prefer a West
Point graduate who had led a regiment in combat, as opposed to a corporate
lawyer turned politician with a few weeks’ experience in a militia unit that did
not fight. The former profile fits Jefferson Davis, and the latter Abraham
Lincoln.”
Experience can be illuminating, but it can also be a trap. There’s a reason we
worry about generals “fighting the last war.” The troop surge strategy that
David Petraeus pulled off so successfully in Iraq was widely considered a costly
failure when it was replicated in the much more complicated mess of Afghanistan.
Politicians, no less than generals, can be blinkered by experience. Vietnam made
a whole generation wary of any interventions, however justified. Bill Clinton,
who never fought but who was shaped by the catastrophe of Vietnam, took a lot of
persuading before he did the right thing in Bosnia. He has said of his failure
to send troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda that “we just blew it.” This
tendency to recoil from conflict was called “Vietnam syndrome,” and Hagel may
have the symptoms.
In “Endgame,” their history of the war in Iraq, Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor recount a trip then-Senator Obama and Senator Hagel took to Iraq in
2008. Obama deftly probes General Petraeus on the nuances of winding down the
conflict. But Hagel comes across as prickly and inflexible. At one point, he
seems to suggest that the general should be trimming his troop requests to fit
the domestic political realities in Washington, and Petraeus takes offense. “I
will do what you want me to do,” Petraeus retorts. “But I’m going to give my
best military advice. You seem to want me to tailor my advice to a policy.”
Another useful Pentagon skill they didn’t teach infantrymen in Vietnam: how to
manage generals.
Chuck Hagel’s War, NYT, 20.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/keller-chuck-hagels-war.html
Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again,
Against Hagel
January 12,
2013
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG
In the
bitter debate that led up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Senator
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest
for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have “sat in jungles
or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.”
Those Republicans in turn called him an “appeaser” whose cautious geopolitical
approach dangerously telegraphed weakness in the post-Sept. 11 world.
The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of
defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute. It is also a
dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview
remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national
debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.
To Mr. Hagel’s allies, his presence at the Pentagon would be a very personal
repudiation of the interventionist approach to foreign policy championed by the
so-called Vulcans in the administration of President George W. Bush, who
believed in pre-emptive strikes against potential threats and the promotion of
democracy, by military means if necessary.
“This is the neocons’ worst nightmare because you’ve got a combat soldier,
successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways
to resolve some questions other than force,” said Richard L. Armitage, who broke
with the more hawkish members of the Bush team during the Iraq war when he was a
deputy to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who championed the Iraq
invasion and is leading the opposition to Mr. Hagel’s nomination, says the
former senator and his supporters are suffering from “neoconservative
derangement syndrome.”
Mr. Kristol said he and other like-minded hawks were more concerned about Mr.
Hagel’s occasional arguments against sanctions (he voted against some in the
Senate), what they deem as his overcautious attitudes about military action
against Iran and his tougher approach to Israel than they were about his views
on Iraq — aside from his outspoken opposition to the American troop surge there
that was ultimately deemed successful.
Mr. Kristol’s latest editorial argues that Mr. Hagel’s statement that he is an
unequivocal supporter of Israel is “nonsense,” given his reference in a 2006
interview to a “Jewish lobby” that intimidates lawmakers into blindly supporting
Israeli positions.
“I’d much prefer a secretary of defense who was a more mainstream
internationalist — not a guy obsessed by how the United States uses its power
and would always err on the side of not intervening,” he added. Of Mr. Hagel and
his allies, Mr. Kristol said, “They sort of think we should have just gone
away.”
In fact, the neoconservatives have done anything but disappear. In the years
since the war’s messy end, the most hawkish promoters have maintained enormous
sway within the Republican Party, holding leading advisory posts in both the
McCain and Romney presidential campaigns as their counterparts in the “realist”
wing of the party, epitomized by Mr. Powell, gravitated toward Barack Obama.
And while members of both parties think the chances are good that Mr. Hagel will
win confirmation, the neoconservatives are behind some of the most aggressive
efforts to derail it, through television advertisements, op-ed articles in
prominent publications and pressure on Capitol Hill, where some Democrats,
including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, have also indicated
reservations.
Their prominence in the fight over Mr. Hagel’s nomination is testament to their
continued outsize voice in the public debate, helped by outlets like The Weekly
Standard, research groups like the American Enterprise Institute and wealthy
Republican financiers like the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose nearly $100
million in political donations last year were driven largely by his interest in
Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition, on whose board of directors Mr. Adelson
sits, was among the first to criticize the Hagel nomination.
The most outspoken among them had leading roles in developing the rationale and,
in some cases, the plan for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.
One critic is Elliott Abrams, a national security adviser to Mr. Bush during the
Iraq war who pleaded guilty in the Iran-contra scandal to withholding
information from Congress. He called Mr. Hagel an anti-Semite who has “some kind
of problem with Jews” in an interview on NPR last week. (The Council on Foreign
Relations, where Mr. Abrams is a senior fellow, distanced itself from his
comments.)
The Emergency Committee for Israel, a conservative group, has run a TV
advertisement and has a Web site calling Mr. Hagel an inappropriate choice for
the Defense Department, citing some of his votes against sanctions on Iran and
Libya and his calls to engage in direct talks with groups like Hamas. Its donors
have included the activist financier Daniel S. Loeb, and Mr. Abrams’s wife,
Rachel, serves on its board.
And of course, there is Mr. Kristol himself, who in the late 1990s helped form a
group called the Project for a New American Century. In 1998, the organization
released a letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that Saddam Hussein posed a
potential nuclear threat to the United States, Israel and moderate Arab states
and should be ousted.
It was signed by several future members of the Bush national security team:
Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary; Paul D. Wolfowitz, who
served under Mr. Rumsfeld; Mr. Abrams; and outsider advisers, including Richard
N. Perle, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee; and
Mr. Armitage. Serving as a research associate was Michael Goldfarb, who is
helping to direct the Emergency Committee for Israel’s attacks against Mr.
Hagel.
Around the same time in the late 1990s, Mr. Hagel was allied with Mr. Kristol
and other hawks calling for the commitment of ground troops in support of the
Clinton administration’s intervention in Kosovo. Mr. Kristol went so far as to
suggest Mr. Hagel as a potential running mate for Mr. Bush in 2000, calling him
an “impressive and attractive first-term senator.”
Their relationship broke with Mr. Hagel’s criticism of the Iraq war, and his
rare status as a Congressional Republican critical of the intervention led to
plentiful TV bookings and the antipathy of the war’s architects and supporters.
Besides being a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hagel had
added cachet by way of two Purple Hearts from his service in Vietnam, which left
shrapnel embedded in his chest and, he has said, a unique perspective on war.
“Here was a Republican with national security credentials saying that the
Republican president was being irresponsible on national security — that’s
potent,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Review Board at
the time and a frequent sparring partner with Mr. Hagel on television. “It drove
me up the wall not so much that he was Republican, because I didn’t care that
much from a political point of view — I thought the substance of his arguments
were just wrong and unfounded.”
Mr. Hagel’s earliest concerns arose before the Congressional vote authorizing
the use of force. “You can take the country into a war pretty fast,” he said in
an interview with The New York Times in 2002, “but you can’t get us out as
quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are.” In the interview, he
took a swipe at Mr. Perle, then one of the most visible promoters of the war,
saying, “Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into
Baghdad.”
Mr. Perle had never served in the military. Along with Mr. Hagel’s comment in
Newsweek that many of the war’s most steadfast proponents “don’t know anything
about war,” his criticism prompted a national discussion about “chicken hawks,”
a derisive term for those advocating war with no direct experience of it. And
his comments drew a rebuke from The Weekly Standard that Mr. Hagel was part of
an “axis of appeasement.”
Mr. Hagel’s words appear to sting to this day. “Normally you hope your cabinet
officers don’t resort to ad hominem argument,” said Mr. Perle, who is now a
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview, he said his
opposition to the nomination stemmed from his fear that Mr. Hagel was among
those who “so abhor the use of force that they actually weaken the diplomacy
that enables you to achieve results without using force.”
Yet Mr. Hagel did ultimately vote to give Mr. Bush the authority to go to war.
He has said that he did so to give the administration diplomatic leverage and
that he now regrets it. Explaining his vote on the floor of the Senate, he
warned, “We should not be seduced by the expectations of ‘dancing in the
streets’ after Saddam’s regime has fallen.”
If Mr. Hagel’s call for caution seems prescient, several opponents have argued
that his prediction that the 2006 troop surge would fail was not — a position
sure to come up frequently as confirmation hearings get closer.
Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again, Against Hagel, NYT, 12.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us/old-foes-lead-charge-against-chuck-hagel.html
Obama Accelerates Transition of Security to Afghans
January 11,
2013
The New York Times
By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON
— President Obama, eager to turn the page after more than a decade of war, said
Friday that beginning this spring American forces would play only a supporting
role in Afghanistan, which opens the way for a more rapid withdrawal of the
troops.
Though Mr. Obama said he had not yet decided on specific troop levels for the
rest of the year, he said the United States would accelerate the transition of
security responsibilities to the Afghans, which had been set to occur at the
middle of the year, because of gains by Afghan forces.
Mr. Obama also made it clear that he planned to leave relatively few troops in
Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends in 2014, saying those forces
would be narrowly focused on advising and training Afghan troops and hunting
down the remnants of Al Qaeda.
“That is a very limited mission, and it is not one that would require the same
kind of footprint, obviously, that we’ve had over the last 10 years in
Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said after a meeting with the Afghan president, Hamid
Karzai, at the White House.
It was the first face-to-face encounter of the leaders since May, and it
underscored the quickening pace at which the United States is winding down its
involvement in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan was discussed in only general terms during the election
campaign, but a series of decisions on troop levels and other issues is to be
settled in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Karzai raised no public objections to troop cuts, saying he had obtained two
important concessions from the United States: the transfer of prisons housing
terrorism suspects to Afghan control, and the pullout of American troops from
Afghan villages this spring.
Brushing aside questions about residual American troop levels, Mr. Karzai said:
“Numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in Afghanistan.
It’s the broader relationship that will make a difference to Afghanistan and
beyond in the region.”
Mr. Karzai also said he would push to grant legal immunity to American troops
left behind in Afghanistan — a guarantee that the United States failed to obtain
from Iraq, leading Mr. Obama to withdraw all but a vestigial force from that
country at the end of 2011.
Mr. Obama’s signaling of deeper troop cuts to come appeared to run counter to
the approach favored by Gen. John R. Allen, the senior American commander in
Afghanistan. Two American officials said in November that General Allen wanted
to retain a significant military capacity through the fighting season that ends
this fall.
Other military experts raised concerns that the United States might forfeit some
of its hard-won gains if it moved to shrink its forces in Afghanistan too
quickly.
James M. Dubik, a retired Army lieutenant general who led the effort to train
the Iraqi Army and is a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, a
nongovernmental research group, said that accelerating the effort to put Afghan
forces in the lead, and the cuts in Americans troops that are expected to
follow, posed risks.
“There will be insufficient combat power to finish the counteroffensive against
the Haqqani network in the east,” he said, referring to the militant group that
operates in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
General Dubik also said that the success of the effort to have Afghan forces
lead this spring would depend on whether they continued to benefit from American
and allied air power, logistical help and medical evacuations, as well as NATO
advisers.
Still, the public display of harmony by the two leaders was mirrored by their
private discussions, White House officials said. Aides said the atmosphere was
warm — “surprisingly so,” in the words of one — given their often tense
relationship. Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai appeared to appreciate the candor of the
exchanges, officials said.
For his part, Mr. Karzai sought to allay fears that he might not yield power
after Afghan elections scheduled for next year. “In a year and few months from
today, I will be a retired president,” he said in a speech later Friday at
Georgetown University.
Mr. Obama extolled what he said was the progress made by Afghan security forces.
By spring, he said, nearly 90 percent of Afghans will live in areas where their
own forces are in charge of providing security. At that time, American and NATO
troops will give up a combat role and revert to an advisory and support role.
The president’s sanguine outlook, however, seemed at odds with a Pentagon report
issued in December, which asserted that only one of the Afghan National Army’s
23 brigades was able to operate independently without air or other military
support from the United States and NATO partners.
The leaders reaffirmed their interest in a political settlement with the
Taliban, with plans to open an office in Qatar as a locus for peace talks. But
with negotiations at a standstill, Mr. Obama left little doubt that the Afghans
would take the lead in any bargaining.
“The United States has been very clear that any peace process, any
reconciliation process, must be Afghan-led,” he said. “It is not for the United
States to determine what the terms of this peace will be.”
The waning American role in Afghanistan’s future was evident when Mr. Obama was
pressed about fears that women could face renewed discrimination after any
settlement with the Taliban.
He said the United States would speak up for the rights of Afghan women — rights
that he noted were enshrined in the Afghan Constitution. But he said it was up
to the Taliban to adhere to the Constitution and recognize that if they wanted
to change how the Afghan government operates, they would have to do so in a
lawful manner.
“The president said several good things about the importance of women’s rights,”
said John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, “but very
little about how the U.S. and Afghanistan will ensure that negotiations do not
endanger them. President Karzai, for his part, said nothing.”
Obama Accelerates Transition of Security to Afghans, NYT, 11.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/world/asia/us-can-speed-afghan-exit-obama-says.html
Veterans
and Senate Buddies,
Until
Another War Split Them
January 11,
2013
The New York Times
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON
— In the old days it was like a Senate buddy movie.
John McCain and Chuck Hagel traveled the world together, popped into each
other’s neighboring offices on Capitol Hill and played pranks. Mr. Hagel, then a
Republican senator from Nebraska, dropped by one Halloween wearing a McCain
mask. Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, liked to jokingly fire Mr. Hagel’s
staff. “Pack up your desks!” he would say. As Vietnam War veterans — Mr. McCain
had been a naval officer and a pilot, Mr. Hagel an enlisted infantryman — they
forged an even closer bond.
“John would call him sergeant — ‘Hey, Sergeant, come in, Sergeant!’ ” said
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is Mr. McCain’s
closest friend in Washington. “They would salute each other.”
But as Mr. Hagel heads into contentious confirmation hearings to be President
Obama’s secretary of defense, the two remain estranged over policy differences
that started with the Iraq War, spread into bitter presidential politics and
ultimately damaged, if not ended, a friendship. Some colleagues say the break
between two stubborn iconoclasts has been exaggerated in the absolutist world of
the capital, but no one disputes that the relationship has cooled dramatically.
“The Iraq war is where the policy differences became pretty difficult to deal
with,” said Mr. Graham, speaking of Mr. McCain’s aggressive push for the 2007
surge of American forces in Iraq and Mr. Hagel’s unsuccessful fight against that
escalation. “The worldview really began to diverge.”
The differences were on full display when Mr. McCain released a statement after
Mr. Hagel was nominated on Monday saying he had “serious concerns” about the
positions on national security Mr. Hagel had taken over the years. The two spoke
the same day by phone in what an aide called a cordial conversation — one of at
least 30 calls to senators Mr. Hagel has made this week in preparation for his
hearing — but on Tuesday on CNN Mr. McCain had not changed his tone.
While “the friendship, I hope, is still there,” Mr. McCain said, he remained
worried about Mr. Hagel’s “overall attitude about the United States, our role in
the world, particularly in the Middle East, and whether we should reduce the
Pentagon further.”
People who know both men say that at this point Mr. Hagel appears to have the
votes for confirmation and that in the end Mr. McCain could well vote yes for
the friend who was at his side during his unsuccessful 2000 campaign for the
Republican presidential nomination. But aides to both acknowledge the dynamic on
Capitol Hill could change and that Mr. McCain — and others — will give Mr. Hagel
a rough time. At the very least, they say, Mr. McCain remains bruised over Mr.
Hagel’s decision not to support Mr. McCain when he became the Republican
presidential nominee in 2008, and over a trip Mr. Hagel took with Mr. Obama to
Iraq the same year.
“He was very angry about it,” said one of Mr. McCain’s 2008 advisers, who asked
not to be identified discussing the complicated dynamics between the two. Mr.
McCain “takes policy disputes very, very personally,” the adviser added. He
described Mr. McCain’s current view of Mr. Hagel as one of “profound
disappointment.”
Mr. McCain, 76, the son and grandson of admirals, and Mr. Hagel, 66, the son of
a lumberyard worker who drank heavily and died when Mr. Hagel was in high
school, first became political pals in 1996, when Mr. Hagel was running for the
first time for the Senate.
Mr. McCain, who by then had been in the Senate nearly a decade and was
nationally known, campaigned frequently for his fellow Vietnam veteran in
Nebraska, much to the gratitude of Mr. Hagel and his staff. The two had similar
personality traits: a sense of humor, brashness, bullheadedness and an aversion
to Republican orthodoxy and hierarchy. By 2000, Mr. Hagel had returned the favor
to become national co-chairman of Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign.
As one of only a small band of supporters in the Senate, Mr. Hagel was a regular
on the “Straight Talk Express,” Mr. McCain’s rolling campaign bus party. He
exulted with Mr. McCain during his upset victory in New Hampshire, roared back
at a smear campaign against Mr. McCain in South Carolina and by the end of the
primaries was a broker for an uneasy peace between Mr. McCain and the Republican
nominee, George W. Bush.
Friends say the strains between the two began in 2002, when Mr. Hagel emerged as
an early and acerbic Republican skeptic to the Bush administration’s plans for
invading Iraq. Mr. Hagel voted for the resolution that authorized the invasion
but rapidly became a critic of the Bush administration’s execution of the war.
Mr. McCain was equally critical, but he saw the solution in an addition of more
than 20,000 American troops, which Mr. Hagel opposed.
“This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives,” Mr. Hagel told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in January 2007. “And we better be damn sure we know
what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that
grinder.”
Mr. McCain saw Mr. Hagel’s views as wrongly colored by the brutal combat he saw
as an infantryman in the jungles of Vietnam, where he was wounded twice. (Mr.
McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 and for the next five years was
imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese.) “I think he was very haunted
by Vietnam,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. Hagel. Mr. McCain, he said, “doesn’t look at
every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience — you know, ‘We
shouldn’t have been there, it went on too long, we didn’t have a plan.’ Fighting
Al Qaeda is not fighting in Vietnam.”
Some former staff members insist that Iraq was not the divisive force between
the two men that it has been made out to be and that they naturally drifted
apart when Mr. McCain began campaigning again for president in 2007 and spent
less time in Washington. Mr. Hagel left the Senate at the end of 2008.
“Although McCain disagreed with Hagel’s position, he never resented him for it,”
Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s former chief of staff and a top adviser in the 2008
campaign, wrote on the Web site RealClearPolitics this week, referring to the
differences over the surge. The two just stopped socializing, he said, for no
discernible reason.
“Not everything that happens in Washington fits into a neat narrative or affects
history,” Mr. Salter wrote. “Sometimes it’s just another unremarkable occasion
when people go their own way for their own quirky reasons.”
Others hold out the possibility of a rapprochement, however remote. “You have
two guys who are hurt, and you know how guys are, they don’t make up unless
there’s a woman around who forces them,” said one of Mr. Hagel’s former staff
members who did not want to be identified discussing the conflict. “They would
rather be friends than not, I’m quite certain of that.”
Veterans and Senate Buddies, Until Another War Split Them, NYT, 11.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/politics/mccain-and-hagel-once-friends-and-now-estranged.html
Nominations for Defense and the C.I.A.
January 7,
2013
The New York Times
In nominating Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary and John Brennan to be
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, President Obama has selected two
trusted advisers who could help him set a new tone, and conceivably a new
direction, on issues of war and peace in his second term. But both candidates
must provide answers to serious questions before they can expect confirmation by
the Senate.
It is a puzzle that Mr. Obama has nominated as defense secretary a person whose
views on gay rights are in question at this sensitive time in the Pentagon’s
evolution. The military’s odious “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule was finally
legislated out of existence in 2011, under the administration’s leadership. But
there is a long way to go to ensure that equal rights are institutionalized.
While a member of the Senate from Nebraska in 1998, Mr. Hagel criticized the
nomination of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg because he was
“openly, aggressively gay.” That was a repugnant reason to oppose anyone for
public office. Last month, Mr. Hagel issued a statement in which he described
his comments 14 years ago as “insensitive,” apologized to Mr. Hormel and
insisted he was “fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to L.G.B.T.
military families.”
Some leading foreign policy professionals who are gay, including Mr. Hormel,
have since said they could support Mr. Hagel’s candidacy. Still, it will be
important to hear Mr. Hagel explain at his confirmation hearing how his views
have changed and how he plans to make sure that all service members are treated
equally and receive the same benefits regardless of sexual orientation. It would
also help if he acknowledged that his past comments were not just insensitive
but abhorrent.
On national security policy, there is much to like about Mr. Hagel, one of a
fading breed of sensible moderate Republicans. Mr. Obama hailed him as “the
leader that our troops deserve.” Mr. Hagel’s experience as a decorated veteran
of the Vietnam War should give him a special rapport with the troops as well as
make him an authoritative voice on the measured use of force. Like Mr. Obama,
Mr. Hagel has been deeply critical of the war in Iraq and is believed to favor a
more rapid drawdown of troops from Afghanistan. He has also wisely advocated
paring the bloated defense budget.
Mr. Hagel’s independence and willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy on
Iraq, sanctions on Iran and other issues — both in the Senate and later as an
administration adviser — have so alarmed neocons, hard-line pro-Israel interest
groups and some Republican senators that they unleashed a dishonest campaign to
pre-emptively bury the nomination. It failed, but the confirmation process could
be bruising. The opponents are worried that Mr. Hagel will not be sufficiently
in lock step with the current Israeli government and cannot be counted on to go
to war against Iran over its nuclear program if it comes to that.
We are encouraged by what we hear about Mr. Hagel’s preference for a negotiated
solution with Iran, his reluctance to go to war, and his support for Israel’s
security, for a two-state solution and for reductions in nuclear weapons. If
confirmed, he would have to tackle the hard job of cutting the defense budget
and balancing the competing needs of the different services.
Mr. Brennan has worked closely with Mr. Obama over four years as the
counterterrorism adviser. He was at the president’s side during the raid on
Osama bin Laden, and pushed an expanded strategy of using drones to kill
terrorism suspects. Mr. Brennan withdrew from consideration for the C.I.A. post
four years ago after human rights advocates said that he had failed to stop
President George W. Bush’s use of torture in interrogating prisoners. He denied
those charges at the time, but the Senate Intelligence Committee should revisit
the issue at his confirmation hearing. He also should be deeply questioned about
how the White House decides on the targets of drone strikes, and whether the
American public will ever know if there are explicit rules for these killings.
In his second term, President Obama has an opportunity to put his stamp more
firmly on America’s relations with the world. He needs his own team to do that,
and the Senate should move as quickly as possible to a vote. Ultimately though,
Mr. Obama will need some new approaches to achieve new goals, not just new
people.
Nominations for Defense and the C.I.A., 7.1.2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/
nominations-for-defense-and-the-cia.html
|