David Brooks Takes A Sip Of Reality

David Brooks is usually clueless but he at least dips a toe in the cold sea of reality today.  He rightly observes that voters like Medicare and Medicaid and that any serious cuts are unlikely.  

Americans don’t particularly like government, but they do want government to subsidize their health care. They believe that health care spending improves their lives more than any other public good. In a Quinnipiac poll, typical of many others, Americans opposed any cuts to Medicare by a margin of 70 percent to 25 percent.
In a democracy, voters get what they want, so the line tracing federal health care spending looks like the slope of a jet taking off from LaGuardia. Medicare spending is set to nearly double over the next decade. This is the crucial element driving all federal spending over the next few decades and pushing federal debt to about 250 percent of G.D.P. in 30 years.
There are no conceivable tax increases that can keep up with this spending rise. The Democrats had their best chance in a generation to raise revenue just now, and all they got was a measly $600 billion over 10 years. This is barely a wiggle on the revenue line and does nothing to change the overall fiscal picture.

He also observes correctly that the only place the money can come from is the Defense Department.

So far, defense budgets have not been squeezed by the Medicare vise. But that is about to change. Oswald Spengler didn’t get much right, but he was certainly correct when he told European leaders that they could either be global military powers or pay for their welfare states, but they couldn’t do both.
Europeans, who are ahead of us in confronting that decision, have chosen welfare over global power. European nations can no longer perform many elemental tasks of moving troops and fighting. As late as the 1990s, Europeans were still spending 2.5 percent of G.D.P. on defense. Now that spending is closer to 1.5 percent, and, amid European malaise, it is bound to sink further.
The United States will undergo a similar process. The current budget calls for a steep but possibly appropriate decline in defense spending, from 4.3 percent of G.D.P. to 3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But defense planners are notoriously bad at estimating how fast postwar military cuts actually come. After Vietnam, the cold war and the 1991 gulf war, they vastly underestimated the size of the cuts that eventually materialized. And those cuts weren’t forced by the Medicare vise. The coming cuts are.

I do have to take exception with Brook's claim that this is why Chuck Hagel was chosen.  It is inevitable that military spending will be cut and Hagel has been a trusted Obama adviser from the beginning.   Empires most often end not when they are defeated in battle but when they are defeated in their treasuries.  That is where the United States is now and a smaller US footprint in the world is a given.

Is Hagel for Defense

Ever since the idea that Chuck Hagel would be nominated to take over at defense the neoconservatives and Likudniks have been up in arms and every attempt has been made to slime him. See:

• The Borking of Chuck Hagel
• Chuck Hagel and America First (Updated)
• Chuck Hagel - Not Crazy Enough
• Slimeing Hagel

Well now it's being reported that Obama likely to nominate Chuck Hagel for Defense secretary.

President Obama is expected to nominateChuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel's views on Israel and Iran.
White House officials said Friday that the president hadn't formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday.
Hagel, who was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996 and retired in 2008, was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received as a soldier in Vietnam. His experience serving in that war made him wary about using force unless other options had been tried, he said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam.
"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force but only after a very careful decision-making process. … I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war," he said.

 And yes the character assassination has start already resumed and who better to start it out than little Billy Kristol. So what is Bill's complaint?  Hagel tells the truth.

In a post yesterday waxing enthusiastic about Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, Michael Moore called attention to a statement of Hagel that I don't believe had been previously much noted. Here it is, from September 2007: 

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

This rounds out a Hagelian worldview—but I also wonder if it could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances. It's true that senators have been notified in the last few days that Hagel is the likely choice. But the latest AP story has the Obama administration keeping the door open for the president to go in a different direction: "White House aides said the president has not made a final decision on either post and won't until he returns from Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. Obama is due back in Washington Sunday morning." Now, when Obama returns, he'll have to come to grips with the Hagel war-for-oil statement.

Of course it was about oil.  Cheney himself was meeting with the major oil companies before 911 to divide up the Iraqi oil fields. Another problem is that Obama has not been inclined to let the Israeli tail wag the US dog and Hagel is not likely to change that.

I think Daniel Larison gets it right:

Yes, McCain and the usual hard-liners will grandstand during the hearings, but they likely would have done that anyway, and I doubt that there most Senate Republicans want to be seen blocking Hagel. Not only would that be an extraordinary thing to do in response to any Cabinet nomination, but it would be unheard of to do it to a former colleague and a member of their own party. Republican hard-liners will do what they can to make the hearings a tiresome and drawn-out process, but in so doing they will simply be reconfirming why the public doesn’t trust them and why Hagel was the right choice.

Slimeing Hagel

Looks like The National Review is pushing Michelle Flournoy over Chuck Hagel for Defense. 

...had Flournoy’s name been leaked as the potential secretary of defense nominee instead of Hagel’s, there's no shortage of material the GOP could have drawn upon to slime her instead, and it’s hard to imagine why they wouldn’t have. There were her ardent defenses of Obama’s foreign policy during the campaign, and her unmasked distaste for Republicans' politicization of the Benghazi attacks. Flournoy, says Kahl, spearheaded the strategic implementation plan for Obama’s $400 billion in cuts to defense spending, which conservative think tanks and leaders—including the outfit where Senor, who has trouble spelling Flournoy’s last name correctly, and Kristol, who has trouble spelling her first name correctly, are board members—have roundly opposed. The fact that CNAS, which she founded with Kurt Campbell, a fellow Clintonista, hasbecome a feeder for the Obama Defense apparatus would not serve her well, either. Even Kahl, a huge admirer of his former colleague’s, has no delusions about the nature of Republican praise for her. “It’s more to criticize Hagel than to prop up anyone else that they’re saying her name,” he said. “Suggesting other names is mainly an indirect way to criticize Hagel,” he said. “The real cynic in me says they’re trying to rhetorically punch Hagel in the face and then raise up somebody else. But since both Hagel and Flournoy strongly back the president's foreign policy, there’s no indication that the neoconservatives really want either one of them.” (To wit, Kristol writes that he would “would expect to differ” with Flournoy “on many issues.”)

Bernard Avishai points to the elephant in the room. 

Some claim the attack on Hagel is the problem of deranged Republicans, and in a way it is. But that is like saying gun control is a Republican problem, implying that the NRA is just a natural feature on the landscape--as if there is no point figuring out where, given a tail and a dog, the wagging starts. No, this attack on Hagel started with the predictable Jewish organizations and pundits, who are now practiced at creating momentum for all kinds of attacks on the peace process. (Its latest initiative is to sign-up congresspeople to, of all things, close the office of Abbas' PLO in Washington--i.e., to punish him for taking his case to the UN, which the Israeli peace camp generally endorsed.)
President Obama, one hopes, will stick with Hagel and force the issue, much as Beinart has advocated. But Obama also has to count Senate votes for confirmation. Besides, he cannot as president attack the power and intoxication of Jewish organizations, which have many Democratic supporters, any more than Eisenhower could simply attack McCarthy and Taft supporters and utterly divide the Republican Party. Any president must be a consensus-builder and this one has an especial fear of divisiveness.

Will The Borking of Hagel Backfire?

I have written about the vicious attacks on Chuck Hagel by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons here, here and here.  James Fallows thinks the attacks may have been so baseless and vicious that they may have actually backfired.

People who have seen this sort of cycle before know how it typically ends. The nominee becomes "damaged" or "toxic" or "too hot to handle" or merely "embattled" or "controversial." An administration that has to choose its battles, chooses not to get messed up in one like this. That's what appeared to happen with Susan Rice last month, and with a number of proposed Obama selections four years ago.
This time, the preemptive strike may possibly have gone too far and been too crude. The most promising recent development is a letter today from nine former ambassadors, who individually and collectively embody "respectable" U.S. government views (including five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel). They all speak on Hagel's behalf, and against the smear campaign to force Obama to drop him. The letter is at the Foreign Policy site, and you can see it there (if you want to deal with a new mandatory sign-in process that FP has instituted). Or you can read about it inPolitico. It begins this way: "We support, most strongly and without qualification, President Obama's reported intention to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense."

Individuals who would normally remained silent are coming to Hagel's defense. From the Foreign Policy site:

"Each of us has had the opportunity to work with Senator Hagel at one time or another on the issues of the Middle East. He has invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would undermine or threaten Israel's security."
Who signed the letter: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece;
Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan;
Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria;
William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel;
Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt;
Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel;
William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia;
Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.

Now who are you going to listen too?  These diplomats or William Kristol.
James Joyner had intended not to speak out since Hagel is his boss but:

It's perfectly reasonable to debate Hagel's views on the size of the defense budget, how best to respond to Iran's nuclear program, or, indeed, US security policy vis-a-vis Israel. Even sideline discussions, such as whether it's time for a woman to head the Pentagon or the wisdom of Democratic presidents routinely nominating moderate Republicans to this particular post, are well worth having.
What's beyond the pale, however, is the campaign of libel and innuendo underway by the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and others declaring Hagel to be "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic" in an attempt to poison the well. It's an outrageous charge that's sadly wielded all too often against Americans who deviate from the hard line Likudist position on the Israel-Palestine debate. We've somehow arrived at the bizarre point where espousing the platform of the Israeli Labor Party is enough to get an American politician labeled "anti-Israel."

Hagel's enemies are the perfect reason to appoint him.

Update
Now the Cubans are after Chuck Hagel:

Rubio Threatens to Hold Hagel
Rubio comms director: 'I’m sure we would have questions about Cuba positions'

The Borking of Chuck Hagel

As I noted yesterday the Zionists, neo-cons and the Israeli Lobby are all going after Chuck Hagel with knives sharpened because he had the nerve to say he placed the interests of The United States above all else.  Daniel Larison calls it The Attempted Borking of Chuck Hagel.

Well it's no different today.  We have the Washington Post editorial board (AKA Fred Hiatt) with a hit piece.

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.
The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

According to Hiatt Hagel is a bad choice because he opposes many of the really stupid and dangerous things that Fred is or has been in favor of.  Of course it is always about Israel and the major opposition to Hagel  is his opposition to going to war with Iran.

And of course Bill (never been right about anything) Kristol is involved again today.

The William Kristol-founded conservative Emergency Committee for Israel says it’s launching cable ads starting Thursday slamming Chuck Hagel, the latest in a spate of criticism over the man who’s said to top President Barack Obama’s list for Secretary of Defense.
The spot, which hits Hagel for voting against sanctions on Iran, is an indication of the next phase of attacks on the former lawmaker, whose past stands on Israel have gotten the most attention.

 Here is a sample:

It goes on: “And while President Obama says all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear Iran, Hagel says military action is ‘not a viable, feasible, responsible option.’ President Obama: For Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel is not a ‘responsible option.’ “

So, Hagel is not acceptable because he's not insane.

Dana Milbank in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post does come to Hagel's defense.

The Hagel hit is wrong on the merits, but it’s particularly egregious because the former senator from Nebraska is among the best and bravest public servants. He was an enlisted man in Vietnam, earning two Purple Hearts in jungle combat. In his legislative career, he was a powerful voice against the chicken hawks who have recklessly sent American troops to their deaths; he became one of the mostoutspoken critics of George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.
Hagel would probably be swiftly confirmed by the Senate, and he should be: A man of unassailable military credentials who regards war as a last resort is exactly the sort of person to head the Pentagon.

The fact that Chuck Hagel is opposed by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons is exactly why he is a great choice.

Chuck Hagel and America First (Updated)

Chuck Hagel has made it clear that he puts the interests of the United States first.  This of course has upset the powerful Israeli lobby.

Bret Stephens:

Ripe, finally, because Mr. Hagel's Jewish lobby remark was well in keeping with the broader pattern of his thinking. "I'm a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator," Mr. Hagel told retired U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2006. "I'm a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
Read these staccato utterances again to better appreciate their insipid and insinuating qualities, all combining to cast the usual slur on Jewish-Americans: Dual loyalty. Nobody questions Mr. Hagel's loyalty. He is only making those assertions to question the loyalty of others.
Still, Mr. Hagel managed to say "I support Israel." This is the sort of thing one often hears from people who treat Israel as the Mideast equivalent of a neighborhood drunk who, for his own good, needs to be put in the clink to sober him up.

So, because Chuck Hagel puts the US first makes him antisemitic.

Of course Abe Foxman of the ADL had to weigh in:

Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel. His record relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling. The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.

So Hagel will resist letting the tail wag the dog.  A good thing in my view.  Israel is not a US ally but a client state - a dependent.  Israel contributes little if anything to the security of the United States but depends on this country for it's very survival.  There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli actions when they are not in the best interests of the US.  Daniel Larison:

Hagel has not been a maximally hawkish supporter of Israel, but the smear against Hagel on this point is particularly loathsome and of course has absolutely no merit. If Hagel criticized Israel’s 2006 Lebanon war, that’s because the overkill and folly that war represented deserved to be criticized. If he believes that attacking Iran would have disastrous consequences and war ought to be avoided, that makes him unusually sane for a member of the political class.

Update:
Peter Beinart takes Stephens to the wood shed with a little reminder about who else put the US first.

A guy named Ronald Reagan said so in 1981, when AIPAC and the Israeli government were lobbying against America’s sale of AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. “It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy decisions,” Reagan told the press. Was Reagan implying that AIPAC—a largely Jewish organization—was doing the business of “other nations” and thus disloyal to the United States? Luckily for the Gipper, Stephens didn’t write a column back then.

Chuck Hagel - Not Crazy Enough

It would appear that President Obama is going to nominate Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense.

President Barack Obama’s administration has backed down from one major Senate confirmation fight — and may be running headlong into another one.
Some in the Jewish community and other Israel backers are reacting with alarm to reports that Obama is preparing to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as secretary of defense. A senior administration official told POLITICO Friday that Hagel is the leading contender to replace Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who’s expected to step down early next year.

While Hagel is certainly no dove he is not one that approves of the Israeli tail wagging the US dog.  This has the Israeli lobby and the neo-cons up in arms.  Daniel Larison has a couple of posts here and here on the attacks on Hagel.
Not too surprisingly Bill Kristol jumps in:

As we go to press on Friday, December 14, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel appears to be the leading candidate to become the next secretary of defense. Anti-Israel propagandists are thrilled. Stephen Walt, junior partner of the better-known Israel-hater John Mearsheimer, writes that if President Obama nominates Hagel, it will be “a smart move.” Why? Because, “unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby.” Indeed, a Hagel pick would “pay back Benjamin Netanyahu for all the ‘cooperation’ Obama received from him during the first term.” Furthermore, Walt writes approvingly, Hagel is “generally thought to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran.”
Hagel certainly does have anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides. While still a senator, Hagel said that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Hagel, one of only two senators who voted in 2001 against renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, also voted in 2007 against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization and opposed the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.
Hagel also has a record of consistent hostility to Israel over the last decade. He boasted in 2008 that, unlike his peers, he wasn’t intimidated by “the Jewish lobby.” The next year, he signed a letter urging President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas. Later in 2009, he revisited another of his longstanding foreign policy fixations​—​his belief in the good intentions of the Assad regime​—​and told a J Street conference, “I believe there is a real possibility of a shift in Syria’s strategic thinking and policies.

So Chuck Hagel is sane - he realizes that a military attack on Iran would be insanely foolish and he refuses to kiss the boots of the AIPIC lobby.  A real plus in my book.

After all but endorsing  Mitt Romney during the recent Presidential campaign it would seem to be very unwise for  Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies to fight the Hagel nomination.  Like it or not Bibi has 4 more years of Obama.  The United States is about the only friend that Israel has left in the World.

Some are saying this nomination is an attempt to undermine the pro Israeli community.

Can anyone doubt that Obama falls within the substantial circle of politicans that bitterly resents the Israel lobby? This is the man who spiritually followed the rabidly anti-Israel Rev. Wright; who gave a tribute to former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi so explosive that it hasnever seen the light of day; who has never visited Israel during his time in office, despite having been as close as thirty minutes away in Egypt, and managing to go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq; who told Jewish leaders in July 2009 that he was deliberately adopting a policy of putting daylight between America and Israel; and who snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington DC and complained to Nicolas Sarkozy about having to deal with the Israeli prime minister.

I don't agree with much of Obama's foreign policy but if he can successfully stop the tail from wagging the dog good for him.

Where's The Beef? Part II

This morning I discussed Richard Lugar's come to Jesus moment on Iraq and expressed some doubts that it really had any significance. Well the WH must see some significance as Lugar has been invited to a secret bunker for some re-education if not water boarding. But that didn't stop Sen. George Voinovich from delivering another meatless burger.
Another GOP Senator Urges Pullout

Sen. George Voinovich said Tuesday the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush's war strategy is failing.

He said the Iraqi people must become more involved and "I don't think they'll get it until they know we're leaving."

But where it the beef?

"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Voinovich wrote in a letter to Bush.

Lugar and Voinovich said they were still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal.

So what are the ready to do? Hold their breath until they turn blue. I'll repeat what I said this morning:

"Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Where's The Beef?

We have already had Senators Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and even John Warner talk the talk when it came to Iraq but none of them have walked the walk. Well Senator Richard Lugar has become the latest to take the walk.
Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican support for President Bush's Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq "very soon."

The well-respected GOP voice on foreign affairs took to the Senate floor to urge Bush to avoid further damage to America's military readiness and long-term national security.

"Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world," he said.

Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sounded a pessimistic note on the prospects for internal political progress in Iraq.

He said he sees "no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, "taking a toll on recruitment and readiness."

"The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing," he said. "The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible."

Lugar also said he believes the chances for success of Bush's strategy of boosting troop levels in Iraq to try to get the security situation there under control is "very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate."

"The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar said. "Persisting indefinitely with the 'surge' strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests in the long term."

Sounds good alright but how does he plan to force Bush's hand? "Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Update
Rick Moran feels vindicated.

It’s just that when everything that I’ve put into building this site up has basically gone for naught because so many of my friends on the right have abandoned reading this blog – mostly because my position on the Iraq War has diverged from GOP and conservative orthodoxy – that I now feel compelled to do a little fist pumping because more and more Republicans are saying exactly the same things I’ve been saying for months; that it’s time to start redeploying our troops so that we can salvage something short of an unmitigated disaster from this military adventure:

[.....]

Every single conclusion reached by Lugar in the above excerpt was reached by me late last year. The lack of progress by the Iraqi government in dealing with their problems making the surge an exercise in futility; the toll on our military; and the ticking clock of public support for the war were all pointed out by me – for which I received the most vile criticism imaginable from some of my erstwhile friends.