Why Obama Should Not Pick a Republican Secretary of Defense

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.

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

Comments

[jobecky20]

This makes a lot of sense. Thank you...I always enjoy your well reasoned posts.

[hiprogloho]

As long as there's no draft, it doesn't matter if Rethugs lead foreign policy. Obama will concentrate on domestic issues on the home front and let GOP warhawks run their covert ops. As long as their base of morons elist, then that lessens the ranks of conservative voters in future elections. Obama is not stupid.

[Lagrangian]

You want a Republican Secretary of State, and to force him to engage in diplomacy? Great. How about John Bolton?

[schatsie]

I totally agree with this premise....i have heard too many times from my son that the Republicans are strong on defence and when they aren't it is because the Democrats are opposing things....

I personally want the Republican party buried for what they have done to this country over the last 30 years.. Before that we had family wages with economic security based on companies having health insurance and pensions... Now we have the gamblers and have NO ECONOMIC SECURITY... Funny while they were 'protecting us from communism and terrorism', they offshored our future and cut the taxes for the rich... Before Reagan, the rich were paying 70 to 91 percent and were well off....Now they pay capital gains and keep whining........

[SiberianRat]

Why not Wes Clark as SoD??!! I agree with some others--Hagel for NSA.

[schatsie]

I would love to be in a room with Wes Clark and that General Fallon and the other generals who Bush ignored....

I would not want to see Webb as Sec Def as he is already known as a Republican who moved left and frankly I would question his loyalty...maybe 4 years from now, but not now.

[veracity]

Great comment. President-elect Obama should SEARCH for all the COMPETENT US generals, and promote them to positions of influence in the US military & civilian DoD.

Oh, Wait... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfo, and other GOP officials FIRED all the competent general officers, the ones who knew exactly where the tragic Bush policies were leading, and especially those who had the courage to SPEAK OUT against those policies - staff officers like General Shinseki, General Taguba, and so many others...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html

[BARRISTER]

If Obama puts two or three Republican Senators from States with Democrat Governors into Cabinet that gives two or three more Democrat Senators appointed to serve out their terms. More than 60!!

[Capncuster]

If you have to have a republican in the cabinet -- and I don't understand why you have to -- pick something like Secretary of Agriculture. Defense and State are too important to be handed over to any Republican until they run all of the neo-cons out of the party. I do agree that picking a Republican for Defense makes Democrats look weak.

[super]

I like Hagel and Lugar... which is why I think Obama should NOT pick either of them for a cabinet position. Look at it this way: if we're to have any hope of returning to some trace of bipartisanship, the best hope for it is in the collegial Senate. Picking either Hagel or Lugar for a position in Obama's cabinet would strip the Senate of one of the last two moderate Republicans and leave the minority party entirely in the hands of the neocons. It is more important for the nation in the long-term that we reverse this hijacking of one of the two major parties by the extremists and try to move that party towards a more moderate centrist position.

[rickd24]

1) Hagel is NOT a moderate, he's as conservative as they come. He is against the war in Iraq, but I don't think that makes him moderate. There are plenty of other conservatives that think the war is a disaster too.

2) Hagel is retiring from the Senate, he didn't run for re-election this year. So picking him will not affect the makeup of the Senate in any way.

[AngloAmerican]

Hopefully Obama will make the best choice for the country rather than for the Democratic Party. If he thinks having Gates on for a year as SecDef is the best thing for the armed services and the country we should trust his judgement, rather than worrying about what message it sends about political parties

[RoRo69]

I totally disagree. Hagel would be a smart choice for Sec. of Defense. His appointment would not communicate only Republicans are strong on defense, but rather that withdrawal from Iraq is not a partisan issue; it's what the majority of Americans, both Democrat and Republican, voted for.

I recommend this article on Hagel:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck

[tbone99]

We need to bust that old saw that Republicans are strong of defense which persists ,despite Bush ignoring all the clues preceding 9/11 and then giving up looking for Bin Laden, while attacking ( whoops) the wrong country.

Like the words : financial conservative - its just an urban myth..

for defense. Gen.Erick Shinseki. Fired by Bushco for being too competent!

[darlingdem]

Hagel would be the perfect choice for Sec Def. He is one of the few Republicans who spoke out against Bush on the war and his botched foreign policy. That sends the powerful message that it's not just the Dems who want to do things differently. Plus, Hagel's a Vietnam vet...and would automatically command authority and respect from the troops...as well as civilians.

Huff Post had one of Hagel's speeches, titled "Memo To The Candidates," posted on this site on June 27th. I was already impressed by this guy's willingness to stand up to Bush. After reading his speech, I was blown away by his insight and policy recommendations.

It seemed as though Hagel and Obama hit if off during their visit to the Middle East this summer. I SO wish that Obama would turn the page on this critical Cabinet position and not keep Gates on. Go with Hagel...he'd be terrific...and it would prove that Obama's serious about a bipartisan Cabinet.

With regard to Secretary of State, I think John Kerry would be a fine choice. He has the best qualifications (ranking on Foreign Releations Committee, military service, high profile and stature on the world stage). Kerry also gave Obama his big break at the convention four years ago...and ended up being one of his strongest, most eloquent supporters during this presidential campaign. (That said, it's not why I think Obama should go with him.)

[Doofus]

One aspect of the Sec/Defense office is that it manifests civilian
control over the military. For that reason alone, it's USUALLY a
bad idea to put a former military person in that office. George
Marshall was the exception, perhaps. Since it's more of an
'implementation' function than a strategic one, it would be
okay to place a Republican in that office & Hagel could do it.

As for Sec/State, that's very much a strategic function and they
had damn well better find an excellent suitable Demo to fill it.

[peterg76]

The Republicans, in general, simply don't know, don't care, and don't even want to do the right thing for their country. They are too close to war profiteering and to contempt and condescension towards other nations and their 'strength' on defence has always been a media myth. If shutting out the Republicans looks bad, well, no-one said it was easy to put (rather than just say) 'country first'.

[AngloAmerican]

"The Republicans, in general, simply don't know, don't care, and don't even want to do the right thing for their country"

Chuck Hagel? John Warner? Do you really htink republicans are huddled in meetings saying "How can we ruin America?" Disagree with them, call them misguided, fine, but I dont think any party runs on a platform they hope will hurt their country.

[tbone99]

Oh yeah , well how come at this very minute the Republican Party is already planning how to obstruct Obama .... and he's not even made any policies.!

[Fein]

I completely support Obama's policy of reconciliation.

But, lets be reasonable, these are Republicans we're talking about! They have to be put in positions they can't do much damage in. SECDEF isn't one of those.

[BillMoyer]

Chuck Spinney for Secy. of Defense! We could not do better.

I believe that few in America would argue with the idea that America needs a new Grand Strategy. Few could argue against increasing accountability for spending at the Pentagon, aligning and prioritizing expenditures according to strategic goals and performance.

We need a Secretary of Defense that has a vast knowledge of military history, intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Pentagon, someone who understands the challenges of 4th Generation Warfare, and someone ethical enough and gutsy enough to stand up to both Pentagon and Congressional pressures.

Due to the fact that over-spending on unnecessary, obsolete, our ineffective weapons systems is often driven by corporate lapdogs in Congress, rather than military exigencies - I believe that most members of Congress familiar enough with the Pentagon's workings are likely too corrupt to lead this institution through any meaningful self-examination.

My proposal for Secy. of Defense is the fiercely independent, highly respected, impeccably ethical Chuck Spinney. Chuck may or may not want the job, but no one in the Congress, the military or elsewhere could bring more expertise and ability to the position than him. From a military family, 7 years in the Air force, 34 years as an analyst at the Pentagon, and protege of the strategic military theorist Col. John R. Boyd, Chuck would bring transparency, effectiveness, and inspirational leadership to an institution in dire need of reform.

Bill Moyer
Executive Director
Backbone Campaign
206-408-8058

[jdenham]

I do not see why being a Democrat or Republican makes a difference in being Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld was a horrible Secretary of Defense as compared to Gates. Gates is a much more effective manager because he makes reasoned intelligent decisions and takes responsibility for his actions. What we need is an effective manager with a moral conscience being a Republican or Democrat makes no difference.

[nyckingpin]

Hagel for NSA?