In politics, it is rare to find a politician that makes a “perfect fit” for a cabinet position, but if there ever was such a perfect fit, it would be former Senator Chuck Hagel for the position of secretary of Defense. Hagel, the former Republican Senator from Nebraska, was nominated today by President Obama.
He has combat experience — having served in the Vietnam War as an infantry squad leader, he achieved the rank of sergeant and was awarded multiple medals including two Purple Hearts. After leaving the military, Hagel was dedicated to helping American troops and veterans. He was appointed deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration, where he fought for funding for VA programs. Later he served as president and CEO of the USO, saving the organization from financial ruin.
Hagel also had a successful career in the private sector, co-founding a cell phone manufacturing company and serving as CEO of American Information Systems.
In short, Hagel has the military and administrative experience needed to be America’s next secretary of Defense.
But the best reasons that he should be our next Defense Secretary come from his policy side.
Hagel’s experience in Vietnam enforced an important principle that he fought for throughout his Senate career: we should not put our troops in harm’s way unless combat is necessary. He was early to question the War in Iraq, even when it was unpopular with the Republican Party, saying, “To question your government is not unpatriotic—to not question your government is unpatriotic.” In both Republican and Democratic controlled Senates he fought for transparency in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and encouraged open debate rather than quick votes such important issues.
His Iraq policy itself was unique, standing apart from the mainstream Republican and Democratic plans at the time. Rather than withdraw as soon as possible or stay indefinitely, Hagel advocated for moving our troops out of the areas of civil war and to the borders. This would ensure that terrorists did not flee or enter the country, while leaving the Iraqis to resolve the inner conflicts, a job that they, not the U.S., were best suited for.
Hagel also fought for the return of civil liberties and the closure of Guantanamo Bay, emphasizing his oath to honor the Constitution, not his party.
In keeping with his commitment to help our servicemen, he was one of the principle co-sponsors of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which gave funding for the education of American troops who served after the September 11 attacks.
Whether it was the wars, civil liberties, Iran, or other issues, Senator Hagel was usually ahead of the curve, advocating a policy that was unpopular at the time, but ultimately the right course of action. As a lone senator, he was unable to change many of the failed policies in place, but as Secretary of Defense, he can make necessary changes where he has power, and he can advise the President to take action where he does not.
It is not often that a person comes along with just the right policy, combat, and administrative experience for the job of secretary of Defense. Chuck Hagel could play an amazing role in shaping American military policy, and it is time that the President, the Senate, and the American people rally around him with their support.
By Nathan Inks and Charles Hinderliter
flyoverland
6:50 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
He should be great at stealth and camouflage. He masqueraded as a Republican for years.
ReverePaul
9:56 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
who cares he gets stuff done
The Missourian
11:20 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013
As recently as 25 years ago, there was actually a sizeable contingent of intelligent moderates in the Republican Party. Names like Danforth, Dole, Specter, Armey, etc that carried political clout and earned respect on both sides of the aisle because they weren't partisan ideologues. Flyoverland, sorry if not endorsing a sack of $%!t candidate like Deb Fischer makes him not a Republican in your eyes. The fact is, he is the kind of guy who makes up his own mind, regardless of what party leadership wants him to do. That I respect, for the same reasons I generally respect, if also generally disagree with, Ron Paul.
flyoverland
9:04 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
So, you are saying someone can't be "intelligent" if they disagree with you? I had not read the SCOTUS decision upholding the Law that made you the final arbiter of intelligence. The problem with losers like Dole, et al is they played the role of the loyal opposition that had no chance of winning. They went along with the radicalized Democrat party and allowed the country to be dragged to the place we find ourselves today. Every compromise moved us farther to the left and away from the traditional center. The fact that Hagel could pretend to be a Republican, the only way a liberal could be elected in Nebraska, demonstrates that. Moreover, I really don't think you can compare Dole and Armey to Danforth and Specter. I don't think there is any doubt if he was still in politics that Danforth would join Specter in the Democrat party. If you check the family's recent political donations, I think that bears me out.
The Missourian
9:15 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
"That I respect, for the same reasons I generally respect, if also generally disagree with, Ron Paul."
flyoverland, learn to read.
flyoverland
9:51 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Not sure what that fragmented sentence has to do with anything I said. I learned to read using phonics, not that whole language crap the left foisted on your generation.
The Missourian
9:56 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
"So, you are saying someone can't be "intelligent" if they disagree with you?"
It's pretty clear what I am getting at. It's your choice to be dense.
flyoverland
2:58 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I am invoking the Jim White Rule.
The Missourian
5:30 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I guess facts bore you.
ReverePaul
11:32 pm on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
"So, you are saying someone can't be "intelligent" if they disagree with you?"
I think that might have been the most ironic thing you've ever wrote flyoverland. Every time someone disagrees with you, you make it seem as if they are not "intelligent."
flyoverland
8:11 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Jim White Rule is in effect.
Caffeinated
8:15 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
You're going to need to sound it out for him, Missourian. He's hooked on Phonics.
Elizabeth O'Fallon
2:35 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
How exactly does someone who wants to "talk" with Hamas and doesn't think Hezbollah is a terrorist organization make a good fit for Secretary of Defense?
Elizabeth O'Fallon
2:46 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Why Israel should be concerned with a Hagel nomination. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hagel-nomination-unnerves-israel-18154424?page=2#.UO0r629X08E
Will Hagel agree with those in the Obama Administration such as Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who that stated before Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood has "eschewed violence" and is largely a secular group? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkYVF8QXw5c
How naive can we be?
flyoverland
8:12 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
How naive can we be?
Look who we elected president
RDBet
9:41 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Who would you suggest? Todd Akin?
Caffeinated
8:14 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Stop whining, flyoverland. It's unbecoming.
Elizabeth O'Fallon
9:59 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
How about someone who is aware of who the enemy is? A crappy Republican candidate is just as bad as a crappy Democratic candidate.