Getty Images
As confirmation hearings begin this morning for Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Defense Secretary, he has no shortage of detractors. They have not, however, focused their criticisms especially well, leading to a hodgepodge of attacks. We've been told, at various times, that the Republican is anti-Israel, anti-gay, too supportive of budget cuts, and too dovish on Iran.
But as Adam Weinstein noted, the most recent talking point focuses on nuclear weapons. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) complained in an op-ed, for example, that Hagel has been "an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament" and "seeks a world free of nuclear weapons." The Weekly Standard complained that Hagel "co-authored a controversial report for Global Zero that urges deep cuts to America's nuclear forces -- by unilateral means, if necessary -- on the path to global nuclear disarmament."
It's true that Hagel has long supported major reductions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It's also true that this is a reason to support, not oppose, his nomination, and the former senator's position, unlike his critics', is entirely in the American foreign policy mainstream. Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, wrote a good piece on this.
The former Nebraska senator's views ... are hardly radical -- in fact, they are downright boring. They represent the consensus of such a long list of security experts from both political parties that it is hard to list them and still keep this article interesting. [...]
Hagel's views are not unique among security experts; they are now the norm. They reflect the growing bipartisan consensus in the U.S. security establishment that whatever benefits nuclear weapons may have had during the Cold War are now outweighed by the threat they present.
The question isn't why Hagel supports "a world free of nuclear weapons," but rather, why his critics don't. John F. Kennedy spoke often of eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons. So did Harry Truman, who actually used them. Ronald Reagan supported the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."
"[F]or the eight years I was president," Reagan wrote in his memoirs, "I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind."
Hagel's position, like that of President Obama, is entirely in line with the bipartisan approach outlined six years ago by George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Colin Powell, James Baker, and Melvin Laird are on the same page.
To be sure, I'm not saying Hagel and Obama are right because prominent figures on national security policy agree with them. I am saying that the position embraced by Hagel and Obama is mainstream, not radical.
As Cirincione concluded, "The truth is that these are all common sense and commonplace positions, part of any national-security policy for the 21st century. It is the nuclear hawks that are outside the mainstream; Chuck Hagel is solidly within it."
The right generally prefers to mock this. I still recall when Obama first outlined his hopes of eliminating nuclear arsenals and Rudy Giuliani whined, "A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care. This new policy, like Obama's government-run health program, is a big step in that direction. President Obama thinks we can all hold hands, sing songs, and have peace symbols."
Hagel's critics are spouting similar talking points now. The more the political world recognizes this as nonsense, the better.
Leave a Comment:
The opposition to Hagel is a motley crew of crusty neocons and Israel-firsters. The gay community has welcomed his apologies and his growth as a man.
"[F]or the eight years I was president," Reagan wrote in his memoirs, "I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind."
Oh Steve, that was priceless....I admire that depth of irony in the morning.
When I read that, I was completely taken aback. That's not how *I* remember the policy--as I was out seeking signatures on petitions for a nuclear freeze. Is my memory wrong -- or Reagan's?
Those who cling to their nukes are afraid.
Those who cling to their guns are afraid.
Those who do not join the military are afraid.
Perhaps they are not afraid, but are just cowards.
Or maybe people who don't join the military don't like it. I'm in my thirties, and I could count the number of just and decent military adventures during my life on a single hand, with more than one finger left over. I am proud that I've never been a part of that.
Even the military acknowledges that nukes are the least effective weapons in our arsenal. They aren't going to be used, but that soak up a tremendous amount of funding, from building and maintaining their launch platforms, especially ballistic missile subs, as well as the extraordinary security that they require. We have a tremendous overkill capacity right now, as we could destroy all the major cities on earth and still have thousands of warheads left. If we had even 100 nukes, we would be able to devastate anyone who launched a nuclear attack on us.
The comments by Reagan just emphasize how far right the Republican Party has moved. Reagan would not even recognize today's GOP let alone subscribe to it's far right agendas.
He'd likely say something like "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me."
"As Cirincione concluded, "The truth is that these are all common sense and commonplace positions, part of any national-security policy for the 21st century. It is the nuclear hawks that are outside the mainstream; Chuck Hagel is solidly within it."
The Republican party doesn't do common sense anymore. (Nor rigorous analysis, or any analytical process). To do so would lead to conclusions against the ideology, and that can not be tolerated.
Nuclear arms that America can use to threaten the rest of the world into submission are only good if your goal is an old fashioned world empire, the same dream that drove Hitler and Stalin. The neo-con dream is for the United States to become an old fashioned world empire striding across the planet unanswerable to anyone. That dream of world empire is also what drives the neo-con lust for war. Maybe the entire neo-con movement should go back to college and learn how the world changed after 1938.
The Military Industrial Complex and the politicians it controls are against Hagel because he has made it clear he will not go along with their dream of attacking Iran and continuing perpetual war. With Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, they're afraid their coffers may run a few billion short.
Obama say--The question is not whether Chuck Hagel is too radical to be confirmed; the question is whether the senate is too radical to confirm him. (obamasay.com)
In the age of drones and more precise weapons, we no longer need a nuke stockpile that can destroy the earth hundreds of times over.
dawn, #10.
I'm with you. Tell it to the GOP. It is yet another example of their absurd and dangerous policies.
It is just sad that Hegel's confirmation as Secretary of Defence can become a format for McCain and Lindsay Graham to air old grievances that mean nothing to anyone but McCain and Graham. All this irrelevant hot air and political posturing is holding up a very good nomination. This kind of governing is become more like the theatre of the absurd. I am so damn tired of listening to this nonsensical whining from these two old ladies.
Hegel has more brains in his right thumb than Graham and McCain combined. it is becoming hard to distinguish these two from senile old women.
How can a country be run like this? No wonder nothing useful is ever gotten done.
As best I recall, the only Republican President to support an increase in our nuclear weapon stockpile, was DD Eisenhower. Of course, there were reasons for that support.
First, nuclear weapons were cheaper than the military spending some Republicans wanted. Second, we had no idea how many such weapons the Soviet Union had or how effective they were. Nor did we know how many of our nuclear weapons might survive a Soviet "first-strike". Redundancy was the reason for the numbers growing more than anything else.
The first ballistic submarine wasn't operational until the early 1960s. Subs that could launch SSGMs (surface-to-surface guided missiles) were available, but had to surface to launch and had to get close inshore to reach anyplace other than a coastal sites. Our bomber force might, or might not, be able to reach the interior of the Soviet Union, but that assumed we had a bomber force and it hadn't been destroyed on the ground. Which was why the DEW (Defense Early Warning) Line of radar stations in Alaska and northern Canada was built.
That was one of the reasons, by the way, that the Cuban Missile Crisis was so dangerous. Besides the proximity of Cuba to major cities/installations, we never had a system of radar stations along our southern border that corresponded to the DEW Line. Had missiles equipped with nuclear warheads been established in Cuba, the entire Gulf Coast would have become one giant military base and all civilian flights would have had to be re-routed so as not to be mistaken for incoming fighters/missiles.
Even though that would have meant no DisneyWorld, it's probably just as well the missiles were removed...