I do agree with you about Obama in particular, but the underlying image still exists and can recur if it isn’t kept quashed. Fox & Co. certainly aren’t done pushing the “Democrats are soft on terror” edition of it, or getting low-information audiences to believe it, as the Benghazi bullshit demonstrates.
I’d really like to know if we can finally declare the Cold War over, and stop this foolishness of using China as a replacement for the USSR as the bogeyman we must prepare ourselves to defend against. If Obama and Hagel can help institute the needed change of mindset in DC on that, and put more focus on the types of things the military will actually need to do in the next few decades, they’ll have done a great service.
If he’s the best person for the job, why wasn’t he nominated first, instead of Susan Rice?
Check my game theory here, because maybe I am wrong: Of those three, the best option for the hard right wing GOP is to follow party lines. Why not refuse to confirm anyone for any cabinet post unless that person is GOP?
OK, the really hard right is in the House, not the Senate. But they’ve already gone for two years refusing to confirm the nominees Obama wants for pretty much everything.
It’s an article of faith for the GOP base that the federal government is evil, and anything that impedes it or makes it incompetent is thus a lesser evil if not good. Sheer uncompromising obstructionism makes them look positively uncompromising, principled, and strong-willed. It is to the career advantage of the GOP minority to filibuster everything; short of not having a filibuster this session, they will.
But the Benghazi bullshit failed. Nobody cared, and certainly didn’t think it projected weakness on the part of Democrats. Fox News did, sure, but if they only convince 35% of the voters that doesn’t really matter.
What matters, at least to me, is that the institutions involved (DoD in particular, but Congress as well) learn the lessons from these failed wars in order to prevent them in the future. I think a Hagel term as SecDef could help that. I could, of course, be wrong.
And the way to fix an “image problem” of being “soft on defense” is to, well, not be soft on defense. Keep killing bad guys while protecting American interests. Pick battles more wisely and win them when we fight them. Build smarter, more capable organizations. Ya know, governing.
Absolutely right. A nice side effect is that you’ll have a GOP head of DoD when the sequester cuts (or any other defense cuts) come through. We saw Pannetta going in to overdrive about how fatal any cuts would be - perhaps Hagel won’t be so deferential to the Generals.
The problem is that the GOP is losing that game now by appearing to be unreasonable, refusing to compromise, and putting party ahead of country. It’s not a good idea to follow a party line that isn’t winning elections for you.
Maybe. I hope Little Nemo’s analysis is right. And if it isn’t, there’s not much to do but end the filibuster, put together the best cabinet possible and accept that no bills will pass the House this session.
Hagel sounds all right. Heck, if AIPAC hates him, I like him better already. And it probably is the right way to get a real reformer into DoD.
But I share 2sense’s worry about the larger political landscape.
No, it was Hegel who was anti-Semitic. Or not. Actually, I could never really tell. Chuck Hagel just doesn’t like AIPAC, but who does? They can be a mite annoying.
