Thank Goodness For That Surge


It is my favorite line in literature, one I most recently quoted in this Valentine's Day post about Simpson-Bowles.   Shilling for the tyrant Napoleon, Squealer rhetorically asks "One false step and our enemies would be upon us.  Surely, comrades, you don't want Jones to come back?"

Well, when you put it that way, of course we don't!

And so we go to the infamous grilling (transcript here) by John McCain, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), whom President Obama has nominated to head the Department of Defense.   The exchange- presented in its entirety below- began as the  Arizonan's opening statement ended:


Even as late as August 29th, 2011, in an interview — 2011 — you’d — in an interview with the Financial Times, you said, I disagreed with the president — Obama — his decision to surge in Iraq, as I did with President Bush on the surge in Iraq.

Do you — do you stand by that — those comments, Senator Hagel?

MR. HAGEL: Well, Senator, I stand by them because I made them. And –

SEN. MCCAIN: You stand by — were you right?

MR. HAGEL: Well –

SEN. MCCAIN: Were you correct in your assessment?

MR. HAGEL: Well, I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out, but I’ll –

SEN. MCCAIN: I think — we — committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the

surge.

MR. HAGEL: I’ll explain why I made those comments, and I believe I had, but –

SEN. MCCAIN: I want to know if you were right or wrong. That’s a direct question. I expect a direct answer.

MR. HAGEL: The surge assisted in the objective. But if we review the record a little bit –

SEN. MCCAIN: Will you please answer the question? Were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would

be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam? Were you correct or incorrect?

MR. HAGEL: My –

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes or no?

MR. HAGEL: My reference to the surge being both dangerous –

SEN. MCCAIN: Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel? The question is, were you right or wrong? That’s a

pretty straightforward question.

MR. HAGEL: Well –

SEN. MCCAIN: I will — I would like to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate.

MR. HAGEL: Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today.

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, let the record show that you refused to answer that question.

Now please go ahead.

MR. HAGEL: Well, if you would like me to explain why –

SEN. MCCAIN: Oh, I actually would like an answer. Yes or no.

MR. HAGEL: Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no.

SEN. MCCAIN: OK.

MR. HAGEL: I think it’s far more complicated than that. As I’ve already said, my answer is I’ll defer that judgment to history.

As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam — was about not just the surge but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam. Aside from the costs that occurred in this country to blood and treasure, aside what that did to take our focus off of Afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of a national threat to this country — Iraq was not — I always tried to frame all the different issues before I made a decision on anything.

Now just as you said, Senator, we can have differences of opinion.

SEN. MCCAIN: But –

MR. HAGEL: That’s essentially why I took the position I did.

SEN. MCCAIN: It’s fundamental difference of opinion, Senator Hagel. And Senator Graham and I and Senator Lieberman, when there were 59 votes in the United States Senate, spent our time trying to prevent that 60th. Thank God for Senator Lieberman.

I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it. And your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether vote for your confirmation or not. I hope you will reconsider the fact that you refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of young Americans.

MR. HAGEL: Well, Senator, there was more to it than just flooding a zone –


SEN. MCCAIN: I’m asking about the surge, Senator Hagel.

MR. HAGEL: I know you are, and I’m trying to explain my position. The beginning of the surge also factored in what General Allen had put into place in Anbar province, the Sunni Awakening.We put over, as you know, a hundred thousand young — (inaudible).

SEN. MCCAIN: Senator Hagel, I’m very aware of the history of the surge and the Anbar Awakening, and I also am aware that any casual observer will know that the surge was the fundamental factor, led by two great leaders, General Petraeus and Ambassador — (inaudible).

MR. HAGEL: Well, I don’t know if that would have been required and cost us over a thousand American lives and thousands of (wounded ?).

SEN. MCCAIN: So you don’t know if the surge would have been required? OK.
Senator Hagel, let me go back — go to Syria now. More than 60,000 people have been killed in Syria. Do you believe that we should be more engaged in Syria?


Twelve (12) times John McCain (in one form or another) asked former Senator Hagel, with whom he once was fairly close, whether he still believed the surge in Iraq was a mistake.   Once, the Nebraskan gave the correct answer, replying "I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that" but in Senator McCain's uncomplicated worldview, only "yes" or a "no" is a legitimate answer.

But the twelfth effort at getting a simplistic answer out of the nominee is the most telling, and wonderfully ironic.  After asking "So you don't know if the surge would have been required," McCain added "let me go back- go to Syria now.  More than 60,000 people have been killed in Syria.  Do you believe that we should be more engaged in Syria?"

Yes, Senator McCain, more than 60,000 people have been killed in an effort to overthrow a regime probably more deadly and dangerous than that of Saddam Hussein. Truth is, the election (such as it was) of Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq seems to be having a significant impact on that civil war in Syria.  On December 1 The New York Times reported

The American effort to stem the flow of Iranian arms to Syria has faltered because of Iraq’s reluctance to inspect aircraft carrying the weapons through its airspace, American officials say.

The shipments have persisted at a critical time for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has come under increasing military pressure from rebel fighters. The air corridor over Iraq has emerged as a main supply route for weapons, including rockets, antitank missiles, rocket-propelled grenade and mortars.

Iran has an enormous stake in Syria, which is its staunchest Arab ally and has also provided a channel for Iran’s support to the Lebanese Islamist movement Hezbollah.

To the disappointment of the Obama administration, American efforts to persuade the Iraqis to randomly inspect the flights have been largely unsuccessful...

Regarding the arms shipments, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton secured a commitment from Iraq’s foreign minister in September that Iraq would inspect flights from Iran to Syria. But the Iraqis have inspected only two, most recently on Oct. 27. No weapons were found, but one of the two planes that landed in Iraq for inspection was on its way back to Iran after delivering its cargo in Syria.

Adding to the United States’ frustrations, Iran appears to have been tipped off by Iraqi officials as to when inspections would be conducted, American officials say, citing classified reports by American intelligence analysts.

Iran’s continued efforts to aid the Syrian government were described in interviews with a dozen American administration, military and Congressional officials, most of whom requested anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

“The abuse of Iraqi airspace by Iran continues to be a concern,” an American official said. “We urge Iraq to be diligent and consistent in fulfilling its international obligations and commitments, either by continuing to require flights over Iraqi territory en route to Syria from Iran to land for inspection or by denying overflight requests for Iranian aircraft going to Syria.”

Iraqi officials insist that they oppose the ferrying of arms through Iraq’s airspace. They also cite claims by Iran that it is merely delivering humanitarian aid, and they call the American charges unfounded.

Oh, of course, they're unfounded, and Orethall James Simpson would have found the murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman if only O.J. hadn't been diverted by committing an armed robbery.  Meanwhile, those shipments of arms to Syria through Iraq continue, a few years after the smashing success of the surge John Sidney McCain is so enamored of.


Share |

Link To The Past


It was February 3, 2011, three days before what would have been the birthday of Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), and the U.S. Senate was celebrating the legacy of the 40th President. The Hill observed 

Republicans, Democrats, and one Independent senator highlighted moments of Reagan's life and presidency today in a two-hour tribute that is expected to be followed by a similar tribute in the House on Feb. 9...

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) lamented that today, Americans are faced with 'whining' that the nation cannot reduce spending, and said the United States needs to rediscover Reagan’s approach. “That's what we need to return to,” he said."

The Alabaman served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama under President Reagan, who later nominated him to a judgeship of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, though he was not confirmed.  To Sessions, as to many Republicans, Reagan was nearly a deity and in a defense of the latter's Strategic Defense Initiative, Sessions wrote glowingly in 2008 in the Strategic Defense Quarterly

The president argued that “the human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence.” While acknowledging the technological challenges inherent in missile defense, often compared to “hitting a bullet with a bullet,” Reagan nevertheless “call[ed] upon the scientiic community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weap­ons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Senator Sessions, meet Senator Sessions.   The conservative Washington Free Beacon reports  

On nuclear weapons, Hagel was questioned by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), chairman of the armed services strategic forces subcommittee, about recent efforts to backtrack on his support for an international anti-nuclear weapons forum called Global Zero and a report by the group that advocated sharp cuts in U.S. nuclear forces.

The Global Zero report called for the total elimination of land-based ICBMs and tactical nuclear arms, in talks with Russia or unilaterally by the United States.

Hagel asserted that Global Zero “didn’t propose or call for anything” and that other administrations had proposed such bilateral, not unilateral arms cuts.

Quoting the Global Zero report, Session stated that it called for either bilateral cuts with Russia or cuts to be “implemented unilaterally.”

“I don’t believe that’s consistent with the policy of the country as a whole,” Sessions said.

Sessions said he was troubled by Hagel’s anti-nuclear views.

“I believe the secretary of defense should be the core, the rock-solid person for defense of America,” Sessions said. “I believe he should project an image of solidity and steadfastness that the whole world and American people can depend on. And I’m more than a little troubled by the report that you participated in, Global Zero report, that calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and clearly suggests that’s an achievable goal in a realistic period of time, although certainly not immediately.”

Hagel, as would be expected, denies the charge.  So, too, does Politifact, which assessed the validity of the accusation of Americans for a Strong Defense- which was formed to oppose the nomination of the Nebraskan to Defense Secretary-  that the nominee has advocated "an end to our nuclear program."  Politifact concluded

Hagel has called for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, but with some major caveats the ad ignores. He is a supporter of Global Zero, which has called for worldwide elimination by 2030. The report he co-authored calls for reducing the U.S. stockpile to 900 nuclear warheads by 2022, but it says that the best way to achieve that reduction is together with Russia and other countries.

But an official who blissfully ignores dangers posed to the Free World by our enemies and naively "calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons" is irresponsible.  So, too, it was in, respectively, 1985, 1984, 1986, and 1983 when the President of the United States declared

“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”

“I can’t believe that this world can go on beyond our generation and on down to succeeding generations with this kind of weapon on both sides poised at each other without someday some fool or some maniac or some accident triggering the kind of war that is the end of the line for all of us. And I just think of what a sigh of relief would go up from everyone on this earth if someday–and this is what I have–my hope, way in the back of my head–is that if we start down the road to reduction, maybe one day in doing that, somebody will say, ‘Why not all the way? Let’s get rid of all these things’.”

Republicans revere (or pretend to revere) Reagan.  Democrats are intimidated into withholding any criticism of the former President and instead praise him in an effort to establish their centrist bonafide.   Few in the mainstream media, therefore, will recognize in Jeff Sessions' overblown criticism of Chuck Hagel a classic case of GOP mythmaking.




Share |