 |
Next President Must Unwind the U.S. from Iraq — Sen. Chuck Hagel |
 |
I attended a talk/book signing by Senator Chuck Hagel today at the New America Foundation today, and as usual, found Hagel to be thoughtful and engaging. Yes he is a Republican and yes, he did originally vote for the authorization for the Iraq invasion, but he is now trying to figure out the best way for the U.S. to both leave Iraq and improve its standing in the world. He admits that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities over the past 5 or 6 years, and he believes one of the biggest consequences of the actions of both Congress and the Administration is that Americans do not trust their government anymore.
When asked his advice for the next President, he first said that if the new President does not start unwinding our involvement in Iraq, then he or she will not be able to govern over the next four years. There has been a consensus among the country that getting into Iraq was the wrong move, and a majority want the U.S. out. If that isn't at least on the way to being resolved, then the next President will not be able to get anything else done. Hagel continued that there are three other things the next President needs to do:
- Form a bipartisan cabinet — It is necessary for the next president to bring the country together and having a bipartisan cabinet of qualified people would be a good start. (And no, he didn't offer himself as a potential Cabinet member — yet.)
- Reach out to Congress in a bipartisan manner– The next President will want Congress to have a stake in whatever policies need to be implemented. The president should hold 2-3 forums around the country with congressional members so that they are also connected with the public.
- Reintroduce America to the World– Hagel noted that 40% of the world is aged 19 or under. This means that the U.S. they know is the country of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not the one of the Marshall Plan and Berlin Airlift of the post- World War Two generation. Polls show that the views of the United States is much more negative than it has been in the past. The next President should , in his or her first 6 months or so, go on 2 or 3 foreign trips, enhance alliances, create coalitions, and try to rebuild what has been lost of America's international reputation.
While I would get more specific, all three constitute good advice. While I am certainly left of Hagel and disagree with him especially on social issues, I do think that the Senate will be losing one of its better members when Hagel leaves office after this year. When he signed my copy of his book, I told him that no matter who is elected, I hoped that he would be part of the next Administration in some form.
His book, by the way, is America: Our Next Chapter — Tough Questions, Straight Answers. I will write about it when I am done reading it.
We have to be very, very careful with Hagel.
Cenk Ugyur:
When it comes to domestic/social policy, as I said I am well to his left. But when it comes to international relations he is very sensible. I'll report more after I read his book.
The problem though is that when Cenk says that Hagel votes with the Bush administration, I believe he means on EVERYTHING - including international relations. I love the way the guy talks, too. But I'm really wary of all this bipartisan stuff. And why is Hagel thrusting himself into the public eye so much now? Hagel 2012, the anti-war Republican? If Obama won but didn't achieve a withdrawal from Iraq, Hagel would be a major challenger. Let's not underestimate this guy.
I think there are many politicians for whom every decision is a political decision. I think that Hagel is different in that while we may disagree with him, he makes his decisions based on his own analysis and world view — not because of GOP talking points. In these very divisive times, I think it is appropriate to note that there are people who are the honorable opposition and not partisan hack enemies. Hagel is an honorable opponent. Hagel has been thoughtful in international relations for years — I think you would actually be interested in his views on the Middle East — and while on social policy I couldn't disagree with him more strongly, I do think he is voting his own conscience.
If Hagel wanted to run, this would have been his best chance. Listening to him yesterday — and yes, I think he was speaking honestly, he seemed to ache for bipartisanship — and not use political difference as a reason to antagonize. And I do think he would be a valuable asset, if put in the right position, for even a Democratic President.
We're definitely going in circles now. At the risk of repeating myself:
I understand what Hagel SAYS and I like it. I have listened to him and read his statements on Middle East policy, specifically Iraq and Iran, and I LIKE WHAT HE SAYS.
I am concerned that you do not understand HOW HAGEL VOTES, ie, WHAT HE DOES.
Do pretty words make up for voting wrong on basically every issue, including the war? Has he introduced legislation that I am unaware of with the goal of ending the war? Has his record in the Senate demonstrated bipartisanship? Do we have ANYTHING to go on, besides his pretty words, to make us think he would be a valuable member of Obama's cabinet?
That's really my view on the matter, and I have heard no evidence yet that would make me alter it. Again, I am fully aware of Hagel's rhetoric.
The suggestion of a Bipartisan Cabinet & concensus building is a good one — indeed, a VERY good one — and one that former Sec'y of State Madelaine Albright touts in her book too. The REestablishment of Diplomacy will do more to take the images of Iraq & prison torture out of the subconsciousness of citizens of ALL ages in other countries than can be presently imagined. Our image should be so strong that they'd want to partner with us, and I'm not talking about continuing BushCo's notions of "spreading liberty by warfare" either: rather, put our money [yes, Bush leaves us with a 70 cent dollar to do less with] with theirs in a new venture abroad, a global 'Marshall Plan' to address extreme poverty & stop using food-in-potential for biofuel: learn to make ethanol out of hay, wood chips & other inedibles.
Sen. Cohen of Maine served in Bill Clinton's cabinet with distinction. More crossovers will enhance "oneness" again like no rebate or phony stimulus could ever do. You could say, 'what did we get from Robert McNamara a half century ago but more of the same-ol' ?', but don't be so jaded: hope a bit. It's never too late to give the Platonic maxim a go {'Politics is the art of the possible.'}
I would suggest a bi-partisan cabinet based on deeds, rather than words.
Jim Jeffords, for example, showed his sincere moderation by resigning from his Party when it became too extreme; his special interest was education IIRC so I'd put him in as Secretary of Education.
Michael Bloomberg at the Treasury would be good also.