11/11/2008 11:36:31 AM EST

Why Obama Should Not Pick a Republican Secretary of Defense

posted by Cenk

I like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar. They are exactly the kind of Republicans that I was in favor of when I was a Republican. I found out later (as I got more into politics) that their domestic policies did not match mine at all and they rarely had the courage to buck their party on anything else.

Chuck Hagel talked a mean game during the second Bush term, but still voted with the president a frightening number of times. In fact, until he made a clean break on the Iraq War toward the end, no Senator voted with Bush more faithfully than Chuck Hagel.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
So, why do I like Hagel and Lugar (who is a quieter and even less courageous version of Hagel on foreign policy)? Hagel did at least publicly break with Bush at the end, which is hell of a lot better than almost all of his colleagues. And when he spoke out against the administration, it wasn't just on Iraq but on their entire misguided foreign policy, including this preposterous idea of not speaking to your enemies.

And when you read his speeches -- including the one right before the invasion of Iraq (which, as usual, he voted for after making a very good case against) -- he exhibits a deep understanding of foreign policy. If he had the courage of his convictions throughout both Bush terms, he would be one of my favorite Senators on this issue.

Lugar has also had the right priorities from the outset, including concentrating on loose nukes in Russia and focusing on Afghanistan. But his meekness makes Hagel look like a lion. But the bottom line is that if Obama is looking for foreign policy or military advice from Republicans, he couldn't have picked two better Senators.

So, why am I saying that Obama should not pick either one of them as Secretary of Defense? Because it sends a very bad message -- that Republicans are strong on defense and that Democratic presidents have to rely on Republicans to make decisions on matters involving the military.

This is already a very damaging idea that exists in conventional wisdom. Bill Clinton reinforced this when he picked Republican William Cohen as his Secretary of Defense. Doing it again would be a significant political mistake.

This isn't just about politics, either. The Republicans overall now are hideous in matters of defense and foreign policy. Encouraging their perceived supremacy in those topics is a very bad idea for the country. We might know the difference between Chuck Hagel and Mitt Romney, but will the average voter? Or will they see them both as Republicans who are "strong on defense"?

Don't get me wrong, I actually do believe in the idea of bipartisanship that Obama wants to implement. And by bipartisanship I don't mean passing Norm Mineta around.  I'm talking about real participation in the government. So, here's a revolutionary idea -- pick a Republican for Secretary of State.

Sure, John Kerry or Bill Richardson (or about eight other people within the Democratic Party) would make excellent Secretaries of State. But the advantage of picking a Republican is that it also forces the Republican Party to emphasize diplomacy -- in fact, to be proud of their diplomacy. It guides both parties in the right direction. At the same time, it doesn't show political weakness. No one doubts the Democrats are strongly in favor of diplomacy.

I would offer up the same two candidates for this position -- Hagel and Lugar. Partly because they are pretty much the only two sane Republicans left in the country. Obviously Obama wouldn't make the mistake of going within miles of picking a neo-con or hard right-winger for a position like that. Hagel and Lugar understand where this country has to go on foreign policy. And with a president who can take action for them, so they don't have to muster up the political courage, they can head this country and their party down a better path.

Young Turks on You Tube

< What Needs to Change First? | Open Thread >
 Display:
Why Obama Should Not Pick a Republican Secretary of Defense | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
Three words: (none / 0)
General Wesley Clark.

by jarett on 11/11/2008 01:18:55 PM EST

clark has several liabilities starting with.... (none / 0)
....the fact he got relieved on command as supreme allied commander nato....

by sfinneganus on 11/12/2008 12:52:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The party of choice.... (none / 0)
of the war profiteers in our country is largely but certainly not exclusively(emphasis on not exclusively) the republican party(the neocons).  I frequently ponder what it would be like to live in a country(maybe Canada or New Zealand) that does not have military hardware(read war) as one if its largest export industries.  How do the budgets of these two countries look when not being strangled by a defense budget like ours in the US? The war profiteers view war purely from a capitalistic standpoint and seek to continually grow their market share by spreading the business of war without any thought to the human impact of their products and services.

There has been a long standing American tradition of aversion to a standing army.  This tradition was largely broken after WWII when our country never really demilitarized after the war hence the origin of the military industrial complex.  The business of war continued after WWII with the cold war right up to the present day.  I believe this has and will continue to have severe consequences for our country the least of which is a defense budget of absurd size that could be better spent on a wide variety of domestic programs.  

There are two truths in the use of force that I believe continually prove themselves over and over again.  The first is the greatest threat to any country is its own military.  Where do a large number of our soldiers go after leaving the military?  Read...into our over-militarized police forces, the border patrol, and into careers like prison guard(read CA prison guard union).  All three of these are ripe with erosion to our freedoms and liberties.  These were not intended consequences and this leads to my second truth of Clauswitz's Fog of War idea.  Fog of War means that when force is used there exists a distorted, narrowed, and often not accurate view of the battle.  The intended result of the use of force is often not the actual result and there are many uncontrollable consequences.

When or if there will ever be an end to the military industrial complex is difficult to say.  With companies like Halliburton moving to Dubai war almost seems like it is now a commodity being traded on an international scale no different than crude oil or soybeans.

So in relation to Cenk's post here, it is a no-brainer to pick a liberal democrat who is not a war profiteer lobbyist turned Sec Def and hopefully one like Rahm Emmanuel who is known for cracking skulls and an ability to get things done.  

by sfinneganus on 11/11/2008 04:20:31 PM EST

It will be a republican (none / 0)

Back in May, Obama referred to "a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called "Team of Rivals" in which [she] talked about [how] Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever, you know, personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get this country through this time of crisis?'"

Lincoln's Sec or War was Edwin Stanton, a democrat.  I think Obama wants to mirror Lincoln and will also choose a member from the opposite party to fill Sec of Defense.

I also believe the above quote of Obama explains the reason why he is giving Lieberman a pass.  Obama will put personal feelings aside to get this country through this time of crisis.  The true "Country First" candidate!

by jklawyer on 11/11/2008 05:44:36 PM EST

Oh Dear God, Please No!!! (none / 0)

Why would anyone in their right mind emulate the disaster that was the Lincoln Cabinet!

What madness is this?

And which politician that ran against Lincoln served in his cabinet?  Douglas?  Breckenridge?  or was it Bell?  I need to go recheck my history books apparently.

by ProfRich on 11/11/2008 08:16:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lincoln-Bashing (none / 0)
I'm with you on the Lincoln's cabinet thing.  Obama would do well to avoid emulating Lincoln, including avoiding theaters.

When he gave his speech on election night, I kept saying over and over and over, "OK, get off the stage.  Get off the stage.  Get.  Off.  The.  Stage...."

by Kang the Conqueror on 11/12/2008 11:47:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The New Age of Anxiety (none / 0)
Logically I don't think Obama has a better chance of getting taken out than Bush (most hated president in at least a century) or Clinton (not hated by most but super-duper hated by those that did) but I am nervous everytime he is in front of big crowds.
Will that subside over the next eight years or is it always going to be this nerve wracking.

by ProfRich on 11/12/2008 12:11:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
i was saying the same thing about his family.... (none / 0)
....anyone who becomes president knows the risk....you command the most powerful army in the world....it is quite likely a few people aren't going to be friendly to you....it is a different thing when you talk about his wife and kids....

by sfinneganus on 11/12/2008 12:59:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why Obama Should Not Pick a Republican Secretary of Defense | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: