Jan 14th 2013

Hagel: What Difference Will He Make?

by Michael Brenner

Dr. Michael Brenner is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union. He is also Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 60 articles and published papers on a broad range of topics. These include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation) and the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform); and publications in major journals in the United States and Europe, such as World Politics, Comparative Politics, Foreign Policy, International Studies Quarterly, International Affairs, Survival, Politique Etrangere, and Internationale Politik. His most recent work is Toward A More Independent Europe, Egmont Institute, Brussels.

The Secretary of Defense has dual responsibilities: security policy-maker, and manager of a vast organization. The two obviously intersect -- but each has its own dynamics and its own politics. Saliency of the issues at the top of the agenda also can vary. Chuck Hagel will find himself in the position of facing major questions both in regard to likely budgetary restrictions that directly affect basic force structures, and in regard to our equivocal attitude toward extrication from Afghanistan and confrontation with Iran -- among other Middle East crises. Unenviable in certain respects, the timing opens opportunities to shape American strategy now and in the longer term. The intellectual doldrums stultifying American foreign policy create incentive to take the initiative; they at the same time resist any deviation from the inertial course.

The policy questions are most compelling even though the possibility of mandatory Pentagon spending cuts creates a sense of time urgency. On Afghanistan, the specific pending decision is what level and kinds of residual forces Washington should aim to keep there after the formal conclusion of the counter-insurgency effort at the end of 2014. This is not a technical issue best left to the generals. For the answer depends critically on defining what the United States' objective there is after twelve years of struggle. So stated, the issue trails a string of slippery questions: what envisaged role for the Taliban and their associates would we deem acceptable and is achievable?; how realistic is the greatly expanded role Afghan security forces that we have set as the sine qua non for a tolerable measure of stability?; can we continue planned strikes against Taliban leaders indefinitely while simultaneously trying to enlist them in a process of reconciliation with the Karzai government?

Nothing coming out of the White House suggests that the administration has made up its mind on these matters -- or even framed the questions. As a result, we are floundering our way out of Afghanistan uncertain as the exact terms of retrenchment and uncertain as to how we might try to fit the pieces of the three dimensional Afghan puzzle together. Here is where Hagel can make an invaluable contribution. As a long time skeptic of our rash, poorly thought through interventions, he has neither an intellectual stake nor a career stake in playing the game of make-believe about our failures. That means he can own up to the fact that we have fallen short of our audacious goal without sugar coating the present or casting the future in a rosy light. This sort of honesty is crucial if we are to make a graceful exit in full appreciation of the limits on our future influence in Afghanistan -- whatever the composition of the military force we hope the Afghans will permit us to leave behind.

The meeting last week between presidents Obama and Karzai underscored the dilemma for each without answering the cardinal question: what now is the point of the exercise? There is reason for cynicism. For the White House, the answer seems to be leaving with sufficient ambiguity as to ends, means and likely outcomes so that reality can be spun whatever transpires. For the Pentagon and CIA, it is to perpetuate the world-wide "war on terror" as presently conducted, and also to avoid being stigmatized for having failed. For the country's political class, it is to perpetuate the myth that we are still masters of the planet whose mistakes are always limited and never fatal to national interests.

Hagel exhibits a rare degree of honesty that militates against such obscurantism. He understands the principle of sunk costs, unlike Leon Panetta who declared last week: "We have poured a lot of blood and treasure into this war, We have made a lot of progress as a result of sacrifice by our people, and we're not gonna walk backward." He does not see reality as malleable to the ministrations of image makers nor -- more important -- does he overlook the nefarious future effects of sweeping under the rug the painful consequences of our misreading the world and ourselves. In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, we are trapped in a situation where we cannot succeed by any reasonable standard (much less by reference to our exalted self image) but cannot face squarely the reasons why. Operating without accountability political or intellectual, we spare ourselves self scrutiny but pay heavily in the repetition of miscalculations and self contradictory policies. Can Hagel be expected to rectify all this? Or even compensate for it? Of course not. He does at least have the ingredients to inflect the process by which Obama, his administration, and the country could escape the virtual realities in which they have been living.

Iran is the other big issue Washington is grappling with. What the United States does or does not do about Iran's nuclear activities will have profound repercussions across the region. In addition, this is a highly neuralgic issue that resonates powerfully in American domestic politics. This last feature of the situation has militated toward an American hard line that is faithfully followed by the American foreign policy community with near unanimity. Wide consensus has stifled sober discussion of the premises built into the official interpretation of the situation and the logical alternatives for dealing with it.

The United States' dilemma is that it has boxed itself into a corner. It has declared the status quo intolerable yet has pretty much exhausted its coercive ammunition in trying to twist Tehran's arm to meet Washington's demands as to the disposition of its nuclear program. Draconian economic sanctions have been unavailing. The military option carries with it huge risks of dangerous consequences, direct and indirect, and offers no assurance of long-term success.

Yet, President Obama adheres to the core premise that the Iran government is hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons despite his own intelligence agencies concluding otherwise. So, the President calmly states that there is no alternative to ratcheting up the pressure -- with war in full view on the table -- even though broadly cast talks on Iranian security concerns as well as ours never have been considered by Washington. For a brief moment right after the election, rumors circulated that the newly reelected president might be prepared to consider comprehensive talks with the IRI whose agenda would extend beyond the nuclear question. Thoughts of such an initiative quickly evaporated -- whether or not they ever received a serious review. The White House seems to be hoping for some deus ex machine that will lift it out of its self created predicament.

This is the sensitive moment when Chuck Hagel arrives at the helm of the Pentagon. There are clues as to his thinking as revealed in a series of public statements. He does share the orthodox view that "the U.S. national security would be seriously threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran..." Sept. 28, 2012 in a co-authored op-ed for The Washington Post.

But he also has warned that "You cannot push the Iranians into a corner where they can't get out...You've got to find some quiet ways -- and you don't do this in the press or by giving speeches -- to give them a couple of face saving ways out of this thing so they get something out of this, too...I don't think that we are necessarily locked into one of two options. And that's the way it's presented. We are great in this country and in our politics of responding to false choices; we love false choices." March 9, 2012 in an interview with Al-Monitor.

Most significant, Hagel has called upon,

"The United States to open a new strategic direction in U.S.-Iran relations by seeking direct, comprehensive and unconditional talks with the government of Iran, including opening a U.S. Interest Section in Tehran. We must avoid backing ourselves into a military conflict with Iran. That need not happen, but it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.... These talks should have no preconditions." June 26, 2008 to the The Brookings Institution.

He went on to say: "Our refusal to recognize Iran's influence does not decrease its influence, but rather increases it. Engagement creates dialogue and opportunities to identify common interests, as well as make clear disagreements. Diplomacy is not weakness- it can be...recall Munich in 1938- but rather diplomacy is an essential tool in world affairs using it where possible to ratchet down the pressure of conflict and increase the leverage of strength."

This is a heretical view in Washington circles. No one in the administration or close to it has been this forthright. It is, however, the prevailing view of most who have personal experience of Iran or who have been schooled in its ways. In a nutshell, the choice on Iran is this. Is the challenge to devise tactics for bringing to heal a rogue, hostile regime? or are we assessing what can be done to avoid a cataclysmic war by reaching agreement on terms that satisfy our reasonable concerns and Iran's legitimate security concerns, too? The evidence is that Hagel opts for the latter formulation.

Is he in a position to have that perspective prevail? What happens next then will depend on Barack Obama. For there is little expectation that Hagel will find many allies within the administration. Secretary of State John Kerry will lighten the touch of what has been heavy-handed American foreign policy while opposing impulsive actions. However, he gives no signs of deviating from the course bearings that have been guiding the nation's foreign policy. John Brennan at the CIA is a true believer in the 'war on terror" writ large who will be as gung-ho about rooting out all manner of Islamist threats to the United States as he was as White House terrorism chief. Tom Donilon as National Security Adviser acts as heavy ballast on the ship of state. Joe Biden prefers a minimal commitment in Afghanistan while an unwavering staunch hawk on Iran.

We soon will know whether Barack Obama avails himself of this opportunity to recast his policy toward Iran and to reorient our foreign policy in the region.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Aug 5th 2020
EXTRACT: "James Murdoch is not the most obvious candidate for editorial heroism. His route to resigning from the News Corp board because of “disagreements over certain editorial content” has been circuitous and colourful."
Aug 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "Say what you will about the slippery slope the US government has been on since Trump came to power, America has a rich history of promoting creative thought, running head-first into particularly uncomfortable subjects, and encouraging robust debate internally and among its allies and partners. Once Trump leaves the scene, America is sure to be perceived as having briefly lost its senses and will come charging back into the mainstream of global thought, debate, and engagement. China has entered the global arena crippled by its own ideology. Ultimately, the US is better equipped to lead the world. It knows that, and so does most of the rest of the world. Someone had better tell Beijing."
Jul 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "The Chinese government has for years argued that its ‘nine-dash line’ of sovereignty over the entire Sea is based on centuries of maritime history, and that China’s claim is air tight. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has even asserted that ample historical documents and literature demonstrate that China was “the first country to discover, name, develop and exercise continuous, effective jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands”. "
Jul 23rd 2020
EXTRACTS: "Like many, I have long been critical of Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union as a dysfunctional currency area. Notwithstanding a strong political commitment to European unification as the antidote to a century of war and devastating bloodshed, there was always a critical leg missing from the EMU stool: fiscal union. Not anymore. The historic agreement reached on July 21 on a €750 billion ($868 billion) European Union recovery fund, dubbed Next Generation EU, changes that.................Unlike the United States, which appears to be squandering the opportunities presented by the epic COVID-19 crisis, Europe has risen to the occasion – and not for the first time."
Jul 21st 2020
EXTRACT: "I cannot recommend strongly enough Anne Applebaum’s recent book Twilight of Democracy: The Failure of Politics and the Parting of Friends. Advancing her arguments with eloquence and personal testimony, Applebaum passionately decries the corrosion of liberal, open-society values in the last three decades. Her book is a practical reminder of what all democrats should have learned from reading Karl Popper’s magisterial The Open Society and Its Enemies, itself written in liberal democracy’s darkest hours during WWII."
Jul 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "Political motivations aside, Macron has said aloud what few others have acknowledged: NATO is experiencing “brain death,” owing to Trump’s dubious commitment to defend America’s allies. Given that the US drift away from NATO began well before Trump, there is little reason to believe that this trend will be reversed, though it may be slowed if he loses the November election. Unless Europe begins thinking of itself as a geopolitical power and takes responsibility for its own security, Macron argues, it will “no longer be in control of [its] destiny.”
Jul 18th 2020
EXTRACT: "Uighur women in China’s Xinjiang province who have more than the approved number of children are being forcibly sterilised, forced to have abortions or having intra-uterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) inserted without their consent, according to reports that have emerged in recent weeks. The birth rate for Uighurs, a predominantly Muslim minority, has decreased significantly, according to a recent research report. These alleged practices are egregious violations of the human rights of Uighur women, and in my opinion, constitute genocide of the Uighur people."
Jul 18th 2020
EXTRACT: "The genetic makeup or “genome” of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced and publicly shared thousands of times by scientists all over the world. If the virus had been genetically engineered in a lab there would be signs of manipulation in the genome data. This would include evidence of an existing viral sequence as the backbone for the new virus, and obvious, targeted inserted (or deleted) genetic elements. But no such evidence exists. It is very unlikely that any techniques used to genetically engineer the virus would not leave a genetic signature, like specific identifiable pieces of DNA code."
Jul 18th 2020
EXTRACT: "The greater lack of transparency that we can now expect will only serve to make Americans pay a greater price for the president’s worst characteristics. Trump has failed our country, utterly and contemptibly. He has spread lies and misinformation. He has displayed a stunning lack of empathy or concern. He has put his personal interests before those of the nation and has revealed an abject lack of leadership. "
Jul 15th 2020
EXTRACT: "The two-state solution is dead and buried. Whatever “solution” may be found in the future will emerge not from an orderly peace process, but from chaos, the precise nature of which is impossible to predict. It could be unilateral annexation. It could be a sudden violent Israeli disengagement from parts of the West Bank. Or it could be direct conflict. This is the iron law of unintended consequences at work."
Jul 15th 2020
EXTRACT: ".........countries such as China and South Korea have been able to successfully battle the virus, and why Morocco, which just started doing the same, now has a reasonable chance of beating the virus down. America is capable of doing all this but the politicization of the virus and silly interpretations of what freedom of action means under the US Constitution have prevented us from following their example. Yes, you are free to take your own health and life into your own hands by being stupid and selfish, but you are not free to do the same with someone else’s health and life. And that is what the “live free or die” movement and conspiracy theory believers among us fail to acknowledge."
Jul 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "The ideas behind MMT [=Modern monetary theory] were mainly developed in the 1970s, notably by Warren Mosler, an American investment fund manager, who is also credited with doing much to popularise it. However, there are many threads that can be traced further back, for instance to an early 20th-century group called the chartalists, who were interested in explaining why currencies had value. These days, prominent supporters of MMT include L Randall Wray, who teaches regular courses on the theory at Bard college in Hudson, New York state. Another academic, Stephanie Kelton, has gained the ear of politicians such as Bernie Sanders and, more recently, Democrat US presidential candidate Joe Biden, providing theoretical justification for expanding government spending."
Jul 7th 2020
EXTRACT: "So we are left with herd immunity and viable treatments as the world’s only realistic near term solution. Sweden has been roundly criticized and shunned by its neighbors for embracing herd immunity at the outset of the pandemic. It has paid a price for having done so based on accelerated infection and death rates. But while the jury will remain out for some time to come about the wisdom of having done so, Sweden may prove to have been ahead of the curve in its approach. Herd immunity is an option that should be seriously considered by the world’s governments, for a safe and effective vaccine could be many years away, and may not be achieved at all. PICTURE: Daniel Wagner.
Jul 5th 2020
EXTRACT: "The war on Yemen begun in 2015 by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has been a failure militarily and a vast drain on resources that, in the age of Covid-19, neither country can any longer afford. Not only has the war been Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam, it has inflicted untold human damage on Yemenis. UNICEF has a new report out warning that millions of Yemeni children are on the brink of starvation. Yemen, with a population of about 28 million (think Texas), is one of the poorest countries in the world. Saudi Arabia, with a citizen population of some 21 million, is one of the richest. The United Arab Emirates, with a citizen population of a little over 1 million, is likewise very rich. Both have waged a high-tech air war on the indigenous Yemeni Houthis, but in the past year have pitched their Sunni proxies against one another."
Jun 25th 2020
EXTRACT: "The facts are clear: the wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50% of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10%. The world’s top 10% income earners are responsible for at least 25% and up to 43% of our environmental impact. Most people living in developed countries would fit into this category, meaning you don’t have to consider yourself rich in order to be globally affluent. Even many poorer people in wealthy countries have a disproportionately large and unsustainable resource footprint compared to the global average."
Jun 24th 2020
EXTRACT: "To be sure, the American Dream was always more aspiration than reality. Economic, social, and intergenerational mobility have always fallen short of what the myth of the self-made man or woman would lead one to expect. But with social mobility now declining as inequality rises, today’s young people are right to be angry."
Jun 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "There is only one way to repair America’s reputation, regain the trust of allies, and ensure that the US can act as an effective counterweight to China: address the root causes of the cracks that Trump’s disastrous presidency has exposed and widened. This is in line with the vision advanced in 2011 by two military strategists, Captain Wayne Porter and Colonel Mark Mykleby, using the pseudonym “Mr. Y.” Porter and Mykleby argued that national security depends not only on the capacity to respond to threats from foreign powers, but also – and perhaps more important – on the “application of credible influence and strength.” That influence, in turn, depends on America’s success in providing a “pathway of promise” for US citizens – and a model for the world."
Jun 14th 2020
EXTRACT: "The most critical question then is not how far Trump will go to promote his treasonous agenda, but for how long Republican leaders will silently accept and subserviently enable Trump to destroy the basic moral tenets and values on which this Union was founded, and which they swore to uphold and protect...............Of course, shame on us if we continue to be surprised by Republicans’ continuing silence, because as we all know, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Trump committed crimes against the American people, Trump’s Republican stooges in the Senate exonerated him following impeachment almost unanimously...................The Republican leadership, to be sure, has made its bed. It has committed moral suicide. History will judge them harshly for their treason and betrayal of the nation, including all of those who have lived and died throughout our history to foster and protect our safety, integrity, and freedom."
Jun 9th 2020
EXTRACT: " Governments can do nothing about the quotidian offenses of living as a black person in America – the empty taxis that refuse to stop, being mistaken for employees in supermarkets, the myriad intentional and unintentional insults. Many now in the streets won’t be satisfied unless the result of this national spasm is improved schools, health care, and job opportunities for minorities – a fair shake for black people. What will happen when America once again falls short of honoring its professed values?."
Jun 8th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should be apparent to most observers of international relations that the Chinese government wants the world to play by its own set of rules. Beijing appears to believe that China’s rise and its assumption of global leadership positions are an inevitable extension of earlier periods in its history, when it was the world’s most powerful country. This is often at odds with the global norms that have been established – with China’s participation, it is worth adding – since the 1940s. While this is clearly the Chinese century, few outside of China would agree that Beijing’s global leadership is either inevitable or necessarily desired – certainly not on the Chinese government’s terms."