SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home It's About Time That an Enlisted Man Ran the Military

PLANK JANUARY 8, 2013

It's About Time That an Enlisted Man Ran the Military

BY KARL MARLANTES

As a writer of fiction, and a fellow veteran of the Vietnam War, I can't help but appreciate the deep symbolic meaning of President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary. Hagel will undoubtedly have an impact on the policies of the Pentagon if his nomination is confirmed by the Senate. But as the first former enlisted soldier to be nominated to run the military, Hagel could also signal less tangible, though equally profound, potential changes to the way the United States understands the requirements of national security.

The first change would be to the long-growing divide between the military and civilian leadership. Up until the 1990s, many political appointees and around half of Congress had served in the military and many of those had seen combat. Today, those with military service are a small minority and those with combat experience a handful. This leads to an increasing lack of understanding, and in some cases downright distrust, between our political and our military leaders. Those in the military are often frustrated by civilian lack of understanding of what they do and what is required to accomplish their goals. People without military experience are more prone to either opposing what they don’t understand or accepting blindly what a military leader proposes because they are overawed by rank and experience.

As a former enlisted soldier who earned two Purple Hearts leading an infantry squad in Vietnam as a sergeant (E-5), Hagel could upend this dynamic. Someone with combat experience can call bullshit on ill-conceived military action without fear of being called unpatriotic. (It would be really stupid to call a man with two purple hearts unpatriotic.) Combat veterans can also call bullshit on self-serving generals and admirals without being vulnerable to “trust us, we’re the experts” or intimidated by rank and experience. In return, professional military people are probably far more inclined to talk turkey with someone who has experienced what they have.

Such trust is absolutely critical when the policy in question involves killing or maiming our nation’s youth as well as innocent civilians caught up in the ensuing war. Being a veteran does not necessarily make one pro-war, or anti-war. In most cases, it makes one anti-stupid war. The only member of Parliament who wept when Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 was Winston Churchill, one of the most combative political leaders of the last century, a man who had fought against the Pathans in the then British Crown Colony of India, who witnessed and participated in the horrific slaughter at the Battle of Omdurman, and the anguish of the Boer War. It was a career soldier, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned us against the now seemingly intractable conflict of interest faced by politicians who vote on our military budget, yet represent constituents and whole communities who earn their livings by manufacturing military equipment or serving local military bases. Chuck Hagel was part of a tiny minority of political leaders who spoke out against the war in Iraq, not because he’s a pacifist, but because he thought it was an ill-conceived use of force.

If Hagel, a Republican, is nominated by a Democratic president, this would also be a clear signal to the nation that decisions about military spending need to be bi-partisan. Certainly there is a guns-or-butter choice to be made, but debating expenditures on non-military programs primarily involves economic consequences for those who are affected. Debating expenditures on military programs involves the lives of those who are affected. It also involves the protection of all of us and our commonly held ideals. The two debates need to be approached with different attitudes. Congress should agree on the military budget separately and before debate on the rest of the budget can begin.

Finally, if nominated and confirmed, Chuck Hagel will be the first former enlisted soldier, as opposed to a former military officer, to become Secretary of Defense. Hopefully, this would spur the military to reconsider—and, ideally, eliminate—many of the arbitrary status distinctions that exist between commissioned officers and enlisted personnel. These are the remnants of a time when class structure was rigid and those in the upper classes assumed their right to command, qualified by birth. Current arbitrary social distinctions—such as enlisted personnel not being able to go to the same clubs or live in the same neighborhoods as officers—hampers informal communication and the effective employment of the more flattened management structures needed to respond to rapid change. They also contribute to resentment and misunderstanding.

I’m not suggesting that Hagel consider the elimination of all hierarchies in the military. But I do think that as a former enlisted soldier he is uniquely qualified to understand how the current system negatively impacts those of lower rank and overall unit cohesiveness. Where other Pentagon leaders have seen a military tradition, Hagel may feel compelled to consider solutions. One easy way to improve unit cohesiveness, for example, would be if all military personnel entered the military through the same boot camp of their individual branch of service. Only after a couple of years of experiencing military life in the lower ranks, would individuals be selected to attend our military academies and other current paths to a commission (such as ROTC or Officer Candidate School). Those seeking commissions will be more connected to those who they will later command–and vice versa. They would have a better understanding of military life and their choice of military occupational specialty before committing themselves to a military career. This would reduce the significant costs of people leaving after years of expensive training. Two years of additional maturity wouldn’t hurt, either.

These problems have been with us a long time. With Hagel's nomination, the public can be hopeful that we will finally solve them.

Karl Marlantes is the author of Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War and What It Is Like to Go to War. He served as a Marine infantry platoon commander in Vietnam where he was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 81 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

81 comments

"I’m not suggesting that Hagel consider the elimination of all hierarchies in the military. But I do think that as a former enlisted soldier he is uniquely qualified to understand how the current system negatively impacts those of lower rank and overall unit cohesiveness." So, it's not about Hagel hating gays; it's about combat "unit cohesiveness."

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Hagel, a Republican, is nominated by a Democratic president, this would also be a clear signal to the nation that decisions about military spending need to be bi-partisan" Why should the Secretary of Defense be given over to the Republican Party in the name of bipartisanship? It seems rather ridiculous that such an important position -- which determines spending and strategy for the largest part of the country's discretionary budget -- should be handed over to the Republican Party at a time when they've so clearly shown themselves to be utterly incapable of governance. It seems to me that a few liberals -- including, apparently, the President -- are so infatuated with Hagel's after-the-fact opposition to the Iraq War and his ambivalence towards Israel that they are perfectly willing to hand over one of the most important cabinet positions to a man who is not *uniquely* qualified (in other words -- he offers nothing that other candidates do not also offer) for the position and who shares most of his views with his comrades in the Republican Party. And, yes, those views -- from gay rights to global warming to women's rights -- have real consequences on how the military is run. Yes, it would be a phenomenal symbol for a former enlisted man to be the second-in-command of the US military. But the President should hopefully be looking at Hagel's background -- Hagel's a bigot; Hagel's a science-denier; Hagel's a died-in-the-wool reactionary -- and how those facts will impact the concrete, physical reality in which we inhabit -- Hagel will likely back spending increases for the Pentagon; Hagel can be expected to drag his feet on dismantling the vestiges of DADT; Hagel will likely stymie any attempts to improve the Dept. of Defense's environmental impact. There are plenty of liberal or moderate Democrats who would make as good of a Sec. of Defense as Hagel. And, more importantly, there are several (especially, as noted in this magazine, Michele Flournoy) who would be substantially better choices for the job. I would have hoped that the President would have learned from his first term, as well as from the last election, and given up his habit of gifting the Republicans with unasked-for concessions. And that's exactly what this choice stinks of -- even if the Republicans are bizarrely against the choice right now.

- zuludown

January 8, 2013 at 1:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, I find the suggestion that Hagel -- again, a very conservative Republican -- will come into the military and start overturning hierarchies and traditions utterly laughable.

- zuludown

January 8, 2013 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oddly, Hagel voted for the war in Iraq and against the surge in Iraq. I say oddly, because it's now accepted wisdom that the war itself was a bad idea but the surge was a great idea that "won" the war (a debatable point, but accepted wisdom). It's true that on every domestic issue important to progressives (the Bush tax cuts, bankruptcy reform, drilling in the arctic, means testing Medicare, privatization of social security, you name it), Hagel was on the wrong side of the issue. But Hagel does give one hope in matters of defense, or more accurately, a more circumspect use of America's military. I say circumspect, not pacifist, because the world continues to be a dangerous place, and the ill-advised use of America's military power weakens America, it doesn't strengthen America. What is the evidence? Here's what Hagel said when he voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution (i.e., the compromise resolution): "Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand Iraq, its country, history, people, and role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of a post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism, and humility." Even today many policy makers seem unmindful of the differences in the middle east, unmindful of the ethnic and religious divisions that underlie so much of the conflict in the region. Hagel, one hopes, knows better.

- rayward

January 8, 2013 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article. It's a great idea to have some people with military experience in important posts in the national security apparatus. Appointment to such posts need not require military experience -- better the job be done by a qualified civilian than a venal or incompetent brass hat -- but having a national security team staffed with people from various relevant walks of life can only make the decision-making process superior. Chuck Hagel was just about the first Republican of important to not only notice that Iraq was a complete mess, but also speak out publicly that this was so. [Plenty of other Republicans knew it was a mess, but they didn't have Hagel's nerve.] He's also someone who respects the military, but understands how bloated our defense budget has become and is willing to start knocking it back down to its proper size. It is for these two reasons that he is opposed by people who desire further military adventures in the Middle East and a defense budget permanently engorged with precious tax dollars. The fight over Hagel isn't about Hagel at all -- it is about his ability to provide President Obama with the political and policy assistance he needs from the SecDef to chart a safe and responsible course in the Middle East and re-organize our spending priorities at home.

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only views that are relevant to his nomination are those on Americas defense and on President Obama. His background, instincts and courage have been exemplary on both. There is zero evidence that he's anti-Israel and the fact that he's always refused to be bullied by inside-the-beltway elite knucklehead neo-cons who have never been right once about anything (and never held acceptable for it) is a delight. I look forward to the hearings, there is nothing wrong with his answering for his grotesque, if long ago, statements on LGBT Americans and what his plans are to run such an important agency. So far, the case being made for him is not complete. Obama is a mature adult and isn't going to nominate someone just to piss off ideological foes in any country, he'll leave that to the Republicans. Americans do not always agree with him, but they trust his judgement and on this one so far, I do too.

- WandreyCer

January 8, 2013 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for your service, Mr. Marlantes. I agree that a SecDef who enlisted and fought with bravery in Vietnam is a very important qualification for SecDef, for the reasons noted here. And, I admire Hagel's bluntness, and am appalled by the Hagel-hysteria being fomented mostly by the neocons who lied us into the Second Iraq War (second for the US. Still not sure if Baghdad holds the historical record for pillaged cities), but now there is another issue, which women in the military might find troubling: "...in 1995 Mr. Hagel told the Omaha World Herald that his opposition to abortion was total and made no exception for cases of rape or incest—a view that helped get him elected to the Senate the following year. He later voted repeatedly against allowing servicewomen to pay for abortions out of their own pocket, according to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Now that Congress has authorized the Defense Department to pay for abortions in cases of rape, it would be worth asking Mr. Hagel if he has evolved on this one, too. ..." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578227370677702846.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t > It's going to be a fascinating confirmation hearing.

- K2K

January 8, 2013 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is a lot of evidence that he has a problem with Gays. That such a man should head the Pentagon is incredible. His courage is not qualification for being Secretary of Defense, ironically his business experience is more relevant.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could you imagine Obama appointing a nominee who once described someone as "aggressively black" or "aggressively feminist" or "aggressively hispanic" or "aggressively asian"? Think about what the words "aggressively gay" signify. Why are (purported) liberals bending over backwards to defend this man?

- zuludown

January 8, 2013 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why are (purported) liberals bending over backwards to defend this man?" Because in their heart of hearts believe that he is anti-Israel. What amazes me is that such an accomplished man could be so bigoted: his views no gays, on women, perhaps on Jews belong to the 1950's which i was when he had been educated. He is no Mel Gibson but his stated views on gays are pretty close to those of the actor.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that most adults are able to (a) separate particular individual attitudes or feelings they might have from the job at hand -- I do it all the time in the classroom as I don't judge students on the political or social views they hold which are different to mine -- and (b) admit openly that views they held in the past were prejudiced or unenlightened and that they have grown since then. Students have to trust me that I don't grade them on some non-literary position they express in a paper that I disagree with; I have to trust Hegel that he's not going to try to enact as SecDef every benighted opinion he has expressed in the (sometimes distant) past. Indeed, I assume that, were there any real worry about the latter possibility, the president wouldn't have nominated him.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Indeed, I assume that, were there any real worry about the latter possibility, the president wouldn't have nominated him." Typical deluded Kool-Aid drinker Obamanaut. Irony, do you HAVE to defend every decision Obama makes? The Chosen One can't make a mistake, can he, in your view. And are you suggesting that the People and the Democratic Party should not have a say at all in who is nominated? What - is Obama not only flawless and infallible, but a Dictator who gets to decide, all on his own, who is to be in his Cabinet? I see, frankly, not only cult-like, but fascistic, tendencies in this untenable position. "admit openly that views they held in the past were prejudiced or unenlightened and that they have grown since then." Well, Bork and Rhenquist admitted openly - admitted at any rate - did not deny - did not actively deny - the positions they held; but did Democrats forgive them? Oh no. But - here you have the Democrats, the real anti-gay party - DOMA? DADT anyone? - nominating a known and avowed homophobe, and all you Obamanauts can do is defend him. As if two purple hearts and two terms in the Senate and Obama's respect for him excuse his past history. As usual, rank hypocrisy on the part of the Kool-Aid drinkers. "I have to trust Hegel that he's not going to try to enact as SecDef" ... Well, he Kant very well leave his Marx otherwise.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point about having an enlisted man in charge is well taken. So, why not have some economic advisors, Cabinet members, so forth, who aren't rich and/or powerful and/or well-connected? Real people don't seem to inhabit the inner worlds of the Washington elite, which makes some damn bone-headed decisions then expects the least culpable and also, most vulnerable pay the piper. Even the Democrats including a certain President seem a little fuzzy on the facts at times, late-night letter reading to the contrary notwithstanding. Also: why not have an enlisted man at the Pentagon who isn't a Republican? I guess this way cost-cutting looks bipartisan but still.

- Sophia

January 8, 2013 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus -- oh dear, I just started sniggering as I read your post and now I can't stop. So much for drafting syllabi as classes begin tomorrow. :)

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All we need now is seattle to come in and start crunching the numbers . . .

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Real people don't seem to inhabit the inner worlds of the Washington elite" Sophia - you know I have a lot of respect for you, but, in all honesty, this line sounds more like Palin than you. "So, why not have some economic advisors, Cabinet members, so forth, who aren't rich and/or powerful and/or well-connected?" Let's take any Cabinet position. The budget of the Department is likely to be in the tens of billion. The Secretary has to deal with Congress, stakeholders, the President and his or her colleagues as pretty much an equal. This is not "Dave", where an accountant can, on the back of an envelop, solve the US deficit crisis. It is natural, therefore, that anyone who would have the political and managerial skills to head such a Depatment would be powerful and well-connected - not just "would", but "ought to". As for economic advisors - if someone is of high enough calibre to advise the President, he or she, again, is likely to be rich, powerful or well-connected. Let us bear in mind that before his election to the Senate, Hagel was not of the "Washington Elite". I don't know what that means in any event, but we should guard against viewing experience and knowledge - aspects of belonging to an "elite" - as handicaps in running a machine as complex and unforgiving as the US government.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SOPHIA wrote: So, why not have some economic advisors, Cabinet members, so forth, who aren't rich and/or powerful and/or well-connected? Pretty good question.

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How demented do you have to be to regard the Democrats as more anti-gay than the Republicans? Is there even a word for such radical derangement?

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SOPHIA wrote: why not have an enlisted man at the Pentagon who isn't a Republican? I guess this way cost-cutting looks bipartisan but still. It's a pretty important priority and almost anything Obama does to make it happen is justifiable. Obama just took a good bite out of the raise taxes on the rich part of his second term. I'd like to see more there, but it is a start. Next he has to come up with some substantial spending cuts that can be sold to his own party. There is no way the Democrats are going to put up with big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. without a whacking great effort to knock the defense budget down to size. The U.S. is currently spending about twice what it spent 10 years ago on defense. TWICE! And for what? What possible justification could there be for spending that kind of money in a world where the USSR no longer exists and China is preoccupied with national development? Only one thing could justify such an expense -- a large war in Asia. For the sake of argument -- let's say, somewhere a lot of people speak Farsi. If America wanted that it should have voted for Mitt Romney.

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"a large war in Asia. For the sake of argument -- let's say, somewhere a lot of people speak Farsi." Reminds me of the great philosopher, Vizzini of Sicily, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" ...". But, of course, I had no idea that the US has plans for invading Tadjikstan.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Tadjikstan was going to invade the United States. It seems appropriate somehow that in our efforts to straighten out the Pentagon, flame war breaks out in the comments section of TNR.

- skahn

January 8, 2013 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It would be really stupid to call a man with two purple hearts unpatriotic" I'm sorry, but was the author not around in 2004 or are three purple hearts too many to protect against stupidity?

- Nari224

January 8, 2013 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How demented do you have to be to regard the Democrats as more anti-gay than the Republicans?" Well that's just it, isn't it? It's a bizarro world. Not too long ago commenters here did not have words enough to express the moral outrage, to castigate and lacerate Romney for being supported by people who would deny an abortion to a rape victim, or who was caught whispering aside that marriage is between one man and one woman. And look what a few weeks do to the pathologically enlightened: to borrow from icarius' dim-witted parody, they leap to the defence of a man with similar views, on record for holding these benighted positions, without even a showing one little ruffle. Suddenly, a political candidate's opinions do not matter, in exactly the same way that a student's opinion doesn't matter when he is assessed for knowledge by his teacher. I mean, really, we all tend to be soft on those we like or support politically but I would have expected a little more sophistication and self-conscious restraint in presenting a view diametrically opposed to what has been trumpeted not so long ago. Reminds me of the Turkish proverb Hitchens cited in his memoir: "When the axe entered forest, the trees said to each other: at least the handle is one of us". Now what exactly makes chuck Hagel one of those who rush to cheer his nomination? I suspect arnon hit the nail on this one.

- Noga

January 8, 2013 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"icarius' dim-witted parody" Now that Noga has squatted over this thread - with a large dose of Exlax in advance, no doubt - expect the thread to wither and die. I'll try not to sound grandiloquent or pompous or whatever in response. Fuck you. (Concise and to the point, expect that it's a waste of two perfectly fine words on a typing piece of decomposed trash that parades here by the name of Noga.)

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, trust me, being a teacher and running a huge Defense Empire are not th same thing. As I said I am neither con nor pro His nomination but those that support him do so blindly.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a fragile ego icarus you have, that goes to pieces at the lightest of jabs. How easily you are goaded into shedding the sophisticate veneer to reveal a person whose level of invective starts and ends with scatological metaphor. Such brilliance and so much to the point.

- Noga

January 8, 2013 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia a non successful business person is someone who doesn't know economic s very well. Why would you want an economic cult as an economic advisor? It's bad enough that the genius economists often get economic policy wrong, though they sometimes get it right. An ordinary non successful business man will never get it right. The hole history of Soviet economic policy in th early years of the revolution should have taught us that.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A lot depends on how one defines "successful." Robert Reich was not rich -- and I don't think he is today -- when he became Labor Secretary. I don't see why a prominent, but not wealthy, economist -- someone from academia, perhaps -- could not become Treasury Secretary. Clearly, we don't want unsuccessful people running government departments, but I don't necessarily equate wealth and success -- particularly the sort of success it would take to run a government department competently.

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As I said I am neither con nor pro His nomination but those that support him do so blindly." Arnon - I have no stake in this either. But I am not sure that those who support his nomination - at least here - do so blindly. There are, in essence, two sorts of arguments to be made. First, we are talking about Obama's selecting a SecDef who 1) will advance *his* agenda - the agenda on which he was elected; and 2) he gets along with. In this sense - and only in this sense - Obama is in the best place to fully appreciate if Hagel is the right person. If one supports Obama and, in this case, his defence policy, then support for a Cabinet member of his own choosing is not blind for that reason alone. It also means that attacks on Hagel's positions on Iran or the Iraq war have nothing to do with him, but rather, with Obama's foreign policy in itself. So let's discuss the policy rather than the man. Second, setting aside Obama's foreign and defence policy, a question is whether Hagel is the kind of person who should be in the Cabinet. Of course, if he is an anti-Semite or a racist or a bigot or a homophobe matters a great deal in this sense. Here, the source of some of the attacks and the nature of the attacks make the attacks themsevels suspect. (It does not mean one supports him, only that one takes the attackers less seriously than they think they merit.) Jennifer Rubin, or anyone else from the Right, attacking Hagel for his commentson gays is one such instance. It is not credible; it is not criticism; it is character assassination. As it happens, I know of the incident personally (well, not Hagel's comments, but Hormel.) No, it was not nice what Hagel said, but then it was not nice what Clinton did - DOMA and DADT, to name two instances. The only difference is that Hagel and Clinton did change; and Hagel did apologize, even as Scalia is running the country denouncing sodomy and Romney never even acknowledged that his bullying an effeminate guy was not really a Good Thing. On this specific score, I don't see a character flaw but the normal reactions and evolutions of a man of his age and background. To not oppose him, on this score, is not to be blind.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: once I reply, I avert my eyse from you droppings. So don't bother. But for good measure, Fuck You again. I have said it and will say it again, leave me alone, and I will leave you to your own hatred. Mention me in anything other than a proper tone, and expect a reaction. So "dim-witted" gets you a Fuck You. Stop your stupid flame war.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus: If you really averted your eyes, you would not be making this comment. If you averted your eye, you wouldn't know what I wrote and respond in your usual elegant poop style. (It appears you don't understand what "scatological"means, so I'm simplifying, even though I rather loath using such a word on TNR, or anywhere, for that matter).

- Noga

January 8, 2013 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, I just read on Angry Arab's website that he exonerates Chuck Hagel of the charge of antisemitism. Now I have to wonder why would Prof. AbuKhalil, who only recently complained that Israeli Jews make too many babies, what would motivate such a person of his record, defend someone like Hagel? What is it about Hagel that he likes? Any ideas?

- Noga

January 8, 2013 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think it's as complicated as all that. Running for office and accepting a cabinet appointment -- even a very powerful one -- are two rather different things. If and when Hagel takes the oath of office as SecDef, he is doing so (a) in an Obama administration and (b) with the assumption that he's on board with the president's broad agenda and priorities. That is quite different from Mitt Romney winning the presidency and imposing his agenda and set of priorities on the country. To the extent that Hagel is actually aware what year it is and who's in the White House, then his unpleasant/prejudiced/suspicious statements from the past (whether on Israel or anything else) are indeed neutralized to a degree by the very fact of his accepting Obama's nomination.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, putting it another way, I think there is little chance of Hagel somehow hijacking the DOD and steering it toward some kind of personal fiefdom on his own. Powerful SecDefs can influence a lot of things, surely, but it's limited and they generally don't (apart from Rumsfeld in 2002-5) run American foreign policy.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry -- final PPS -- so I think in that sense at least Hagel is not "a political candidate."

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony is an optimist of the spirit.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think there is little chance of Hagel somehow hijacking the DOD and steering it toward some kind of personal fiefdom on his own." As you rightly note, Rumsfeld did not only that, but took over State as well. But then you had a uniquely incompetent president presiding over a uniquely incompetent administration ... Now - Obama may be a weak-willed lilly-livered clueless naïf when it comes to the Republicans; the Community-Oragnizer in Chief might well have to be taught, er, patiently, the A-B-Cs of basic command by them thar Big Daddy Generals of his; but there is no evidence, as yet, that he is weak or innocent when it comes to his Cabinet officers - like the solid Alinskyite Chicago Pol that he is, he keeps his minions under control. So there is that. Having said that, I think you're missing the point of the substantive (underlying) criticism of Hagel. It is not that Hagel is this way or that; the danger, from the perspective of the most aggressive of his critiques, is not that he will run off on his own, but that he will implement only too closely and faithfully what they consider to be misguided (at the very best) policies of this administration.

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is nothing blind about my support for Chuck Hagel as SecDef. I think Jamelle Bouie makes the point fairly well over at Greg Sargent's Wash Post blog. Here is the key point: And indeed, Hagel’s background — in 2011, he told the Financial Times that the Defense Department was “bloated” — makes him a good choice for implementing this course of action. >>With all of that in mind, it’s no surprise that Republicans are eager to derail the former senator’s nomination. By choosing Hagel to lead the Pentagon through its period of belt tightening, Obama helps creates the perception of bipartisan support for defense cuts. It gives him cover that the GOP doesn’t want to provide, and challenges their debt-cutting bona fides. After all, if Republicans are so eager to reduce deficits, they should support sensible cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. Which is to say that if Hagel is confirmed, his nomination will have been a savvy political choice by the president. Whether or not those budget cuts will happen, of course, is another question entirely.<< Now, if you don't care about trimming the Pentagon budget and re-ordering our priorities in favor of more domestic investment, then support for Chuck Hagel at Defense would make little sense. It would, in fact, be blind, I suppose. But if you DO care about those things -- and many of us on the center-left care very much -- then there isn't anything blind about support for Hagel. Now, perhaps someone can come up with another person who is similarly devoted to putting the Pentagon on a long-overdue diet AND can also provide some bipartisan cover to help make it happen. Give me that name and I'll reconsider my support for Hagel. Whatever Hagel's views on gays, he isn't bringing back DADT. Maybe his views on gays have evolved, maybe not. If Bill Clinton can now pose as a gay rights crusader, why can't Chuck Hagel at least plausibly claim he doesn't hate gays anymore? But I don't care to hear about gay rights from people who never cared about gay rights until Chuck Hagel's name was floated for SecDef. These Republicans pushing for Michele Flournoy are preposterous. The moment Ms Flournoy returned with a reduced defense budget or defended diplomacy with Iran, the VERY SAME Republicans who pushed for her would instantly denounce her as an Obamabot communist who hates servicemen, is a secret lesbian and has no business making defense policy anyway because she's a weak and feeble woman. Defense cuts matter a lot to me and I think Chuck Hagel is the best person to help make those cuts happen. The permanent Warfare State needs to be dismantled. I'm not a pacifist. I want a military capable of reducing our enemies to smoldering piles of ash, but we can have that for a lot less money than we're spending right now. If I thought Daffy Duck was the best person/mallard to make that happen, I'd be for him. That wouldn't be blind either.

- DC Spence

January 8, 2013 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Marlantes writes with no sense of irony "It would be really stupid to call a man with two purple hearts unpatriotic." But apparently calling a man with a Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts not only feckless, unpatriotic and unAmerican is OK. Of course when the Republicans question the authenticity of a decorated vet like John Kerry, well it's just part of the vetting process but Hagel, well we can't call into question his judgements on anything. IF Obama was smart, he'd nominate Kerry for Sec of Def and pick someone else for Sec. of State instead. But does it really matter who Obama nominates when the GOP will filibuster whomever he nominates regardless of experience? Personally I don't see how nominating a Republican Vet as SoD has any more advantage to it than nominating a Democrat Vet. However, it is very important that Obama nominate someone with military experience to be SoD and will support his vision for the DoD for the next 4-8 years and expedite that vision within the context of DoD budget cuts and the draw down in Afghanistan while maintaining the capacity for fast reaction capabilities.

- singlspeed

January 8, 2013 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I had more confidence in Chuck Hagel's ability to cut DoD spending before I checked to see if he voted for the irresponsible Bush43 tax cuts. Yes, on all votes. The disconnect is that Hagel claims that Eisenhower is a key role model, but Eisenhower raised taxes to pay for the Korean War. I recall that was one point Krugman hammered at every opportunity when Bush43 went to war in Iraq after a second round of tax cuts, that that was the first time in history... It really is that Obama has good chemistry with Hagel, and that counts for a lot. But, why invite so many contentious confirmations (Brennan, the Drone Warrior), and Treasury, and EPA, and Interior...? Michele Flournoy's husband has experience (Go Navy!) that makes him as qualified, maybe more qualified, for SecDef, but he is currently #2 at Dept of VA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Scott_Gould http://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_gould.asp

- K2K

January 8, 2013 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hagel thinks cyber-war is a super-high priority. and it is. Does anyone know if he has been told that Israel is the USA's key ally in cyber-war?

- K2K

January 8, 2013 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ick: "Having said that, I think you're missing the point of the substantive (underlying) criticism of Hagel. It is not . . . . that he will run off on his own, but that he will implement only too closely and faithfully what they consider to be misguided (at the very best) policies of this administration." No, I'm not missing it. It just looks as if I am.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to clarify my statement about "real people," which I truly didn't mean to sound like Palin. However, when $400,000/annum income = "middle class" there is a problem understanding basic economics. And the struggles of the poor are just not mentioned, by the Democrats either - this includes inner city people, people of color, women, and old/disabled people. The rush to trim "entitlements" - by the Dems yet - reflects a lack of realism about what people confront every day and the growing inability of many, many Americans to meet basic needs let alone deal with stuff like the odd operation or cancer diagnosis, or caring for a disabled child or a parent with dementia. That really bugs me. Even during the campaign we kept hearing - from the DEMOCRAT, about the "middle class," about policies that would help the "middle class" which I take to be people making about $250K/annum - and not one word about the poor. And the term "middle class" whether one identifies culturally with being a middle classnik or not, should be more closely associated with America's median income than Obama's benchmark of $250K or what he settled for in the cliff deal, although I recognize the need for a compromise to get started. Rome wasn't built in a day after all and many Americans would have suffered immediately had we gone over the cliff. But, it does seem there's a gap, a real perception and experience gap, between the powerful and the not-so-powerful and definitely between economic classes. That's something we never even used to admit we had in America (class) so at least now we've begun talking about it. Now, let's do something about it, was my point, and for the mighty to hear from the not-so-mighty would be a start, and I don't mean simply as people begging for a bowl of rice but as equals. So, I don't expect some working class or poor person to necessarily hold a Cabinet position for the reasons cited, I think by Icarus, ie, needing to be savvy, so forth - but - and this is true in the corporate world as well - powerful people in politics and especially, rich people need to realize they do share a planet with the rest of us, that their decisions, good or bad, affect all of us and that they should at least make an effort to learn about our world (and the world of plants and animals too while I'm at it, which we are rapidly making extinct.) Also, we are not stupid, we have good ideas, we're creative, and we have a lot to contribute. But many if not most of us never have an opportunity. We're simply shut out of the process.

- Sophia

January 8, 2013 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also if one is serious about the "middle class" one discusses labor honestly. Respects labor, values labor, stands up for unions, doesn't think $8.50/hour = a good salary, deals with the issue of rising corporate profit vs lower worker income/benefits/security and addresses issue like the impact of automation on the labor force, etc; hopefully this doesn't make me sound too much like Sarah Palin but enough already. Also, Krugman and Reich, et.al., are not members of an economic cult; please. And the Soviet Union they are not.

- Sophia

January 8, 2013 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" No, I'm not missing it. It just looks as if I am." Really? No wonder nobody gets it ... You are so clever.

- Noga

January 8, 2013 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why the pointless, pointless jibes and unprovoked hostility?

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "Hagel thinks cyber-war is a super-high priority. and it is. Does anyone know if he has been told that Israel is the USA's key ally in cyber-war?" I think he knows that very well which is why his comment that he is anti-Israel is believable. However, he does need to answer lot of questions before he is confirmed.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ronyroad i "No, I'm not missing it. It just looks as if I am." You sound like your mind is made up.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, I wouldn't go by what Iran says, they seem to get American policy wrong time and time again. The Ayatollahs probably believe their own propaganda. One of their State news outlets Press TV had a story blaming the Mossad was behind the shootings of Children in the Conn. school.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly arnon -- the Iranians were offered "concrete changes" by Obama in 2009 and rejected them out of hand.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2013 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wrote a post about Hagel but I couldn’t post it from my i-pad. I’ll try again. I don’t believe that Hagel was chosen because he was an “ordinary” enlisted man. He was a very brave soldier but that is no qualification for running the Defense Department. He was chosen in part for his experience as the head of a multimillion dollar cellular company. I would compare him to DD Secretary Harold Brown who served under Carter and who also chosen for his scientific and technical experience. There are many differences in their careers but both served in government for many years: Brown under McNamara and Hagel in the Reagan administration. The article about Hagel is a lot of malarkey.

- arnon1

January 8, 2013 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why the pointless, pointless jibes and unprovoked hostility?" Irony, I say this without any snark whatever. You really have to ask this after all these years? Arnon was right: you really are an optimist :) ...

- icarus-r

January 8, 2013 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Someone with combat experience can call bullshit on ill-conceived military action without fear of being called unpatriotic. (It would be really stupid to call a man with two purple hearts unpatriotic.) Combat veterans can also call bullshit on self-serving generals and admirals without being vulnerable to “trust us, we’re the experts” or intimidated by rank and experience." I like the article, but, and yes, it was an election year, John Kerry didn't fair well against attacks on his service record, so it's not clear that experience will help Hagel.

- jet

January 8, 2013 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You really have to ask this after all these years?" It's not quite that simple, icarus. But yes, in general, and not just to do with Noga, sometimes one has to ask even if no answer is forthcoming.

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My jibe was not unprovoked nor pointless, ironyroad. One thing that I dislike is having people smugly exchange knowing glances over other people's heads. It is contempt that attempts to be visible but ostensibly discreet, a form of sanctimonious, ill-bred snobbery. Are you satisfied with my answer? And to quote your desperately needy friend, "You really have to ask this after all these years?"

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 6:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: on Jan 3, I answered your question about the NY election results, with vote totals, in this thread: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111560/sandy-relief-gop-stiffing-its-own but you never came back to read it. Not the first time. However, icarus chose to snark my comment that was solely directed to you. If you ask a question, make sure you come back for the answer? No mas.

- K2K

January 9, 2013 at 6:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, icarus's snarks or feces-infested way of expression shouldn't bother you one little bit. He is so off the page of sane and tolerable expression that it is almost pitiful.

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 7:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"feces-infested way of expression" Noga, as soon as you squat over a thread, everyone's expression gets covered in your emissions and effluents. If, instead of insulting, lying, abusing, accusing, attacking and distorting, you actually engaged in a proper discourse, as others do, you might well see a change in response. But you are a self-confessed person of bad faith. You attempt to assassinate, and as soon as you are thwarted, you wail to high heaven. Well, FU. In any event, let me pre-empt Irony: I am not his "friend" and have no "friends" here. FU, again, in case you forgot.

- icarus-r

January 9, 2013 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"However, icarus chose to snark my comment that was solely directed to you." K2K - want to have a private conversation, email irony - don't post. If you post, expect a reply from other than those to whom you address your remarks. Ask Noga - I keep telling her to leave me alone, but she insists to call me on my grandiloquence and pomposity, even when I studiously ignore her. :) And when you make a stupid comment, even after being corrected, expect ridicule. Though, I have to say, it's not so much the silliness of your comments that prompt a reaction in me; it is the incessant whining about blowback.

- icarus-r

January 9, 2013 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought you averted your eyes from my comments, icarus. But of course narcissist that you are, you cannot even pretend to keep to your own promises:)

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My jibe was not unprovoked nor pointless, ironyroad." It was both, Noga. There was not a single word I wrote that could be interpreted as provocative, hostile, or snobbish. If you believe differently, then why not say what it was? Until then, I (and I think anyone reading this thread) will conclude that it doesn't exist.

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I didn't come back partly because others were also responding, and partly because I didn't quite understand the "coat-tails" point you were making about Sen. Gillibrand. Here's not the place but for the record I was underlining that Obama's victory in NY state hardly reflected the lack of support you had suggested earlier.

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: don't flatter yourself. You are a self-confessed person of bad faith; I make no promises to you. I will respond to your lies, distortions and accusations as and when I see fit. It is not a promise but a statement of fact. Now, I will refuse to get engaged in your flame wars any longer here - you have already half-killed the thread, as usual. Knock yourself out with more childish insults; won't read and won't respond. Oh, I forgot. FU.

- icarus-r

January 9, 2013 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" If you believe differently, then why not say what it was?" IR: Or, putting it another way, I think there is little chance of Hagel somehow hijacking the DOD and steering it toward some kind of personal fiefdom on his own. Powerful SecDefs can influence a lot of things, surely, but it's limited and they generally don't (apart from Rumsfeld in 2002-5) run American foreign policy. Icarus: Having said that [typical icarus's fantasies about how Obama's critics think about him], I think you're missing the point of the substantive (underlying) criticism of Hagel. It is not that Hagel is this way or that; the danger, from the perspective of the most aggressive of his critiques, is not that he will run off on his own, but that he will implement only too closely and faithfully what they consider to be misguided (at the very best) policies of this administration. IR: No, I'm not missing it. It just looks as if I am. ____________ What does it mean "It just looks as if I am." ?? That you were speaking to me on one level while sharing icarus's sensibilities and fantasies (about what I "really"think) on a deeper level? I explained that I really dislike it when people exchange knowing glances over other people's heads, because it implies contempt, snobbery and condescension. And this dialog clearly is an exchange of glances with you, IMPLICITLY, endorsing icarus's ugly perversions of my own view (which you derided by invoking "medieval fiefdoms" or whatever). If you don't wish to be misunderstood, you should not get sucked into participating or contributing to this kind of discourse by icarus's or others', extravagant and essentially vulgar rhetoric. And, fwiiw, I don't really give a damn what others on TNR think or perceive. You keep appealing to public opinion, as if it is a measure of some superior judgment. Why is that?

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"icarus's ugly perversions of my own view" "icarus's or others', extravagant and essentially vulgar rhetoric" Speaking of narcissism and ugliness - here is what I wrote, and it had nothing whatever to do with your "own view". Stop lying. Well, that - and stop flattering yourself. "Now - Obama may be a weak-willed lilly-livered clueless naïf when it comes to the Republicans; the Community-Oragnizer in Chief might well have to be taught, er, patiently, the A-B-Cs of basic command by them thar Big Daddy Generals of his; but there is no evidence, as yet, that he is weak or innocent when it comes to his Cabinet officers - like the solid Alinskyite Chicago Pol that he is, he keeps his minions under control. So there is that." The Republican bit refers to Aaron, drof and roid; the Generals, to Peretz. Now, your head is so far up Peretz's ass that you might consider yourself as one and the same - you might even be him, for all I know - but I assure you, while I remember your hysterical defence of Peretz's racist rant, it is Peretz that I was referring to, not you and your shirt-rending in defence of his bigotry. You have a beef with Irony, work it out with him. Stop lying about me. Oh, and FU.

- icarus-r

January 9, 2013 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wasn't speaking to you particularly, Noga, it was also arnon and possibly malahat and K2K too. I was saying that I was aware that some posters potentially -- potentially -- were arguing in the subtext that the real problem was that Hagel would be a faithful servant of the administration, rather than that he would somehow be an eccentric outlier, because some posters have a negative view of Obama and his history on the Middle East and the I/P conflict. However, I didn't want to take up that issue openly because (a) nobody else had done so and (b) I don't believe that the Obama administration IS hostile to or looking to disadvantage Israel, so I didn't want to be the one to verbalize it. But I did want as a matter of pride to reassure icarus that I am in fact a very smart person and nothing escapes me. As it were. The "medieval fiefdoms" was just me -- I was thinking of Rumsfeld. Something else . . . oh yes: the only reason I appeal to others is that for so long I was baffled to the point of derangement by your ascription of tones or emotional attitudes to my comments that I couldn't for the life of me find in my own reading of them. One continual accusation, for example, was of "vehemence" in posts that I subjectively read as being fairly laid-back and detached. Assuming that you weren't just inventing it all, I began to think, ok, if I don't see it, and nobody else sees it either, than at least that's a relief. If other people see it too -- well, that's a different kettle of fish.

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: if you can explain how Sen Gillibrand far exceeded Obama's votes in NY, even tho many more voters voted in total for president than senate, it would help better understand your point of view, about Obama's alleged popularity in NY. Usually, the presidential candidate is expected to have the coattails - see the 2012 results for Massachusetts and Wisconsin as examples. btw, Gillibrand is already being groomed for a possible shot at higher office - and she is obviously more popular than either Gov. Cuomo or Obama, amongst NY voters. for the record, tnr.com is the only website where commenters are NOT moderated. Bullying is a huge problem in America. Seems so intolerant of alleged Liberals to engage in such snarky bullying. It is not just middle school students who commit suicide from online bullying, although current laws are only applicable to trying to protect minors. And, bullies always accuse their targets of being 'whining victioms'. No, Bullies have targets, not victims.

- K2K

January 9, 2013 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I have been far more supportive of Hagel for SecDef, despite all the 'Jewcentric' concerns that suddenly surfaced - although I do think Ashton Carter would have been a better choice. well, on to next Hagel thread. "...The only member of Parliament who wept when Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 was Winston Churchill, ..." is one of the lines from this post that really bothered me, because usually Churchill is remembered for the meat grinder that was Gallipoli in WW1. Not exactly the point Marlantes was trying to make about those who have survived bloody combat being more careful about sending others to the same fate.

- K2K

January 9, 2013 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not in NY so I'm not sure if I'm a good judge of what the Gillibrand vote means on the ground, K2K (e.g. there are upstate Republican voters who like her?), but my main beef was that your initial statement on that thread "Obama can only visit NY for private fundraisers" was hyberbole and seemed just plain silly in the light of the Sandy experience as well as the election outcome. Other than that, I don't know if we're disagreeing on Hagel -- perhaps not?

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I understand why Obama wants Hagel, and have been surprised at the attacks from all sides, I think it is questionable why Obama wants so many confirmation battles with the Senate (wait for Treasury and EPA!) Why snarky bullying is a problem: "...Americans often wonder why Washington is so dysfunctional. There’s blame to go around, but Harry Reid deserves his fair share. As she prepared to leave office last year, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine said simply, “The Senate doesn’t work.” One of the reasons for that is the casual incivility that has replaced congressional courtesy. One of Reid’s fellow Democrats, Maryland Sen. Benjamin Cardin, explained part of the problem in five words last year: “Civility, cooperation must be priorities.” It was a succinct observation that civility and compromise are interrelated. It’s probably too much to ask powerful senators to remember their mothers’ admonition that “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything . . .” Or perhaps not. ..." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/09/harry_reids_corrosive_words-2.html irony: everyone in New York knows that Obama only comes for private fundraisers ever since Gail Sheehy wrote that scathing post in 2010. It is NOT hyperbole. The NY dems only want a Clinton in public. Obama's visit on Nov. 15 for StormSandy is what ANY president should do. Probably helped that the US Marines had previously, finally, landed on Staten Island :)

- K2K

January 9, 2013 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All right, then. Ironyroad, I can accept your explanation and counter with an almost apology for jumping to conclusions as far as concerned you. Why ""almost"? Because I am fussy about details and you have not covered all the points of my complaint. As for whether "Obama administration IS hostile to or looking to disadvantage Israel," I remain firmly sceptical about his intentions. And I don't really believe anything a politician avows to when under pressure from his election campaign. _________ Sidebar to ironyroad: Are you by any chance familiar with an essay by Walt Whitman about the creative instinct/poetry writing? I found one essay "Poetry To-Day in America" but it's not exactly what I was looking for. I ran into such a reference a while back but lost it. Now I'm wondering if I had not imagined it.

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWIIW, I think a tough nut like Hagel might be just the thing for Israel to deal with. Israeli leaders need to start thinking creatively. If I can believe Debka reports, it appears as though Netanyahu has already begun to do just that.

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fwiw noga, I think Hagel is the perfect SecDef to keep the military leaderships in Pakistan and Egypt, if not happy, at least cooperative. As for Israel? Maybe Netanyahu will make Naftali Bennett the next Defense Minister :)

- K2K

January 9, 2013 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't really inspire much confidence when the Iranians are so pleased with his nomination. They are not at all foolish, you know.

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know my way around Whitmanland to some extent, but I can't think of what that essay might be. The Walt Whitman Archive is an ongoing project aiming at making all of WW's writings available in electronic form: you might find something here: http://www.whitmanarchive.org/published/other/CompleteProse.html If it was more of a journalistic piece -- I'm not sure, as they don't have everything.

- ironyroad

January 9, 2013 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks. It was mentioned in an article about Lorca, and connected between the essay and the poem that L. had written about Whitman. Never mind. Maybe I misread. If not, I will probably run into it again. It's the first time I re-read Whitman since my Eng. Lit. undergraduate days. He seems too happy to be a poet:)

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 10:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Almost too happy...

- Noga

January 9, 2013 at 10:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh come on, icarus. The most famous of the Great Vizzini's Three Classic Blunders is, "Never go up againtht a Thithilian where death ith on the line."

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 7:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we should ask the Iranians whom they would least like to see as Secretary of Defense and appointment him/her. No, hold that. We should ask Israelis whom they would most like to see and appoint him/her. Even better, we should ask the Great Vizzini, if we could find him. These are obviously the opinions that matter.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 7:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Incontheivable.

- icarus-r

January 10, 2013 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As you wish.

- roidubouloi

January 10, 2013 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close