tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/chuck-hagel-4516/articlesChuck Hagel – The Conversation2020-12-17T19:13:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1518152020-12-17T19:13:53Z2020-12-17T19:13:53ZWhy retired generals, like new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, rarely lead the Pentagon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375528/original/file-20201216-17-zcbg2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5590%2C3726&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Retired Gen. Lloyd Austin has been confirmed by the Senate as the next secretary of defense.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Biden/baa9e2ec4ebb4d55a9f15ec36b19ca05/photo">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>By all accounts, retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, just confirmed by the Senate to lead the U.S. Defense Department, is eminently qualified to be secretary of defense. A man who achieved the rank of <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/biden-introduces-gen-austin-says-moment-calls-for-waiver-for-defense-pick/2418953/">four-star general</a> and succeeded at every turn during his 40-year career, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/secretary-defense/617330/">Austin displayed valor and courage</a> while serving the country for nearly half a century. </p>
<p>Ironically, though, Austin’s lengthy military career created a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/15/esper-pentagon-diversity-white-house-414901">sticking point</a> in his confirmation process. The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113">law requires</a> a service member to be <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-to-introduce-lloyd-austin-as-defense-chief-rekindling-civilian-military-debate-11607531725">out of uniform for at least seven years</a> before assuming the civilian role of secretary of defense. </p>
<p>Austin left the Army just over four years ago, which made him technically ineligible for the post. Congress waived the waiting period before confirming him, something it had previously <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/austin-confirmation-challenges/index.html">done only twice since 1947</a>, most recently in 2017.</p>
<p><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-introduces-historic-defense-secretary-nominee-congress-debates/story?id=74632054">Austin’s selection is historic</a>. He is the first African American to lead the nation’s military establishment, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html">step toward broadening</a> the Pentagon’s largely <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/15/esper-pentagon-diversity-white-house-414901">white male leadership ranks</a>. </p>
<p>Yet the fact that Austin’s extensive military experience briefly clouded <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/biden-will-face-uphill-battle-confirming-retired-general-lloyd-austin-as-pentagon-chief-210908873.html">his prospects</a> raises the question of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113">why the seven-year delay exists</a> in the first place. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Gen. Lloyd Austin" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375532/original/file-20201216-15-hohd5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Retired Gen. Lloyd Austin will serve as Joe Biden’s secretary of defense.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austin_2013_2.jpg">U.S. Central Command, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Civilian control over the military</h2>
<p>The formal legal delay dates from the end of World War II, but the concept behind it harks back to the nation’s origins and lies at the heart of the American <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civilian-control-military-tradition-began/story?id=43927430">military tradition</a>.</p>
<p>The founders had personally experienced an empire’s use of a standing army and therefore viewed <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed08.asp">large military forces as the hallmark of authoritarianism</a> and an inherent threat to democracy. They believed that generals’ influence over <a href="https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/4/4/unpacking-civilian-control-of-the-military">how armies are used</a> must <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-why-is-the-pentagon-usually-led-by-a-civilian">always be subordinate</a> to those officials <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051026185242/http:/usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm">directly accountable to the people</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Henry Knox, the first U.S. secretary of war" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375548/original/file-20201216-13-55zok9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The nation’s first secretary of war was Henry Knox, a former bookseller turned military commander in the Revolution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Knox_by_Gilbert_Stuart_1806.jpeg">Gilbert Stuart, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051026185242/http:/usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/democracy/dmpaper12.htm">Samuel Adams</a> wrote in 1768 that “even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it.” In 1776, the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/virginia-declaration-of-rights">Virginia Declaration of Rights</a> asserted that “in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, civil power.” That document became an inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and, later, a model for the Bill of Rights. </p>
<p>When it came to the Constitution, the founders <a href="https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/american-perspectives-civil-military-relations-and-democracy">specifically prescribed</a> <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/will-civilians-control-military/">civilian control</a> over the military by assigning the president the role of commander-in-chief while giving Congress the power to set the military’s rules and budget.</p>
<p>In the wake of World War II, Congress worried that the American public had increasingly <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-why-is-the-pentagon-usually-led-by-a-civilian">fallen under the spell</a> of charismatic generals like Douglas MacArthur, buying into the argument that greater autonomy should be given to the heroic captains of battle. <a href="https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/4/4/unpacking-civilian-control-of-the-military">As MacArthur saw things</a>, the prerogative of proven warriors should not be checked by civilians who know nothing of war. </p>
<p>Congress disagreed and created the waiting period to limit career military officials’ eligibility to run the newly created Department of Defense. A 10-year gap in service – later shortened to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113">seven years</a> – would allow a general’s “<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725/5">star to fade</a>” to an acceptable level, reducing their influence over the public.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375534/original/file-20201216-19-1m9usxk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chuck Hagel, secretary of defense under Barack Obama from 2013 to 2015, was a veteran but not a career member of the military.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secretary_of_Defense_Chuck_Hagel._130227-A-SS368-001.jpg">Monica King, U.S. Army/Department of Defense, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many defense secretaries have been veterans but not career soldiers – like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/chuck-hagel-vietnam-brother.html">Chuck Hagel</a>, who had been a soldier in the Vietnam War in 1967 and 1968, decades before he <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/why-barack-obama-picked-chuck-hagel-085822">led the Pentagon</a> for President Barack Obama from 2013 to 2015. Others have been scholars, politicians and leaders of business or industry, like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-V-Forrestal">James Forrestal</a>, appointed the first defense secretary in 1947, who had worked on Wall Street before joining the government. </p>
<p>Their leadership skills and experience were developed at least as much outside the military as within it.</p>
<h2>‘A specialized society separate from civilian society’</h2>
<p>As a major in the Army National Guard, I am familiar with the mentality of career military officers. </p>
<p>During <a href="https://centerforlaw.org/dwight-bio">my nearly 20 years as a military lawyer</a>, I have never heard a senior officer tell a superior he or she couldn’t accomplish a mission. In the mind of a colonel or general, there is literally nothing that cannot be achieved with a well-disciplined group of soldiers, smart tactics and an ample supply of funding and equipment. </p>
<p>This can-do attitude is part of the career officer mentality – but so is a certain intolerance for dissenting opinions. The foundational premise of military management is a unity of command and a <a href="https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30511-AR_600-20-002-WEB-3.pdf">single voice of authority</a>. Senior officers typically have little patience for opposing views or consensus-building. Diversity of thought is not celebrated; contrarian views are not welcome.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>As the Supreme Court has observed, “the military is, by necessity, a <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/417/733.html">specialized society</a> separate from civilian society.” It is an institution that has “developed <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/417/733.html">laws and traditions</a> of its own during its long history,” a body where, in the end, the “<a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/137/147.html">law is that of obedience</a>.”</p>
<h2>Austin receives the third waiver</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Gen. George Marshall" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1142&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1142&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375529/original/file-20201216-17-11094wa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1142&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">George Marshall, the first U.S. five-star general in the 20th century, later served as secretary of defense – but only for a year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:General_George_C._Marshall,_official_military_photo,_1946.JPEG">U.S. Department of Defense, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Retired Gen. George Marshall received the first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/politics/biden-austin-defense-secretary.html">waiver of the waiting period</a> in 1950. Marshall made a <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725/5">candid observation</a> during the nomination process: “As a second lieutenant, I thought we would never get anywhere in the Army unless a soldier was secretary of war. As I grew a little older and served through some of our military history … I came to the fixed conclusion that he should never be a soldier.” </p>
<p>Considered <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725/5">uniquely qualified to oversee U.S. forces</a> in the Korean War, Marshall was eventually confirmed on the condition his tenure would be limited to one year. <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-why-is-the-pentagon-usually-led-by-a-civilian">Congress stated at the time</a> that “no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Gen. James Mattis" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375531/original/file-20201216-19-a907gc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Retired Gen. James Mattis was the second career military officer to receive a waiver of a waiting period between his uniformed service and becoming the secretary of defense.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gen_James_N._Mattis.jpg">U.S. Department of Defense, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It took nearly 70 years for the second waiver to be granted, to retired Gen. <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44725/5">James Mattis</a> in 2017. <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-233527">His confirmation faced early resistance</a> from senators, especially Democrats, because Mattis had left the Marines just four years earlier. In reluctantly voting to confirm Mattis, Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, cautioned that “<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/08/944231676/bidens-defense-pick-raises-concerns-over-civilian-control-of-the-military">waiving the law should happen no more than once a generation</a>.” </p>
<p>Austin has now become the third recipient of a waiver. He professes to have acquired a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-introduces-lloyd-austin-secretary-defense-nominee-live-stream-today-2020-12-09/">civilian mindset</a> since leaving active duty, but the rationale underlying the waiting period remains as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/09/generals-pentagon-defense-secretary-military-civilian-norm-443989">vital and relevant</a> as ever.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/137/147.html">An Army is not a deliberative body</a>,” the Supreme Court once observed. </p>
<p>Giving career members of this body the authority to decide how America’s blood and treasure are spent should be the exception, not the rule. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published Dec. 17, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Dwight Stirling is a reserve JAG officer in the California National Guard. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency.</span></em></p>President Joe Biden’s nomination of a recently retired general to lead the Pentagon required an exception to federal law.Dwight Stirling, Lecturer in Law, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/473392015-09-11T10:12:46Z2015-09-11T10:12:46ZFourteen years after 9/11, Obama still struggles to close Guantanamo Bay<p>Even prior to his inauguration, Barack Obama said that during his first week in office as president of the United States, he would issue an executive order closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. However, he cautiously hedged by <a href="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2009/01/obama-orders-guantanamo-prison-closed.php">adding</a> the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[C]losing Guantanamo…is a challenge. It’s going to take some time. We are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by the Constitution. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“The prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security,” <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-security-5-21-09">Obama said</a> in explaining the need for action. “It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.”</p>
<p>Obama did in fact issue that <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-01-27/pdf/E9-1893.pdf">executive order</a> his second day in office. At that time, there were 240 detainees who remained at Guantanamo, of which 150 individuals were eligible for release or transfer to a foreign home or host nation. The order called for the balance to be tried by military commissions for violation of the laws of war, or to continue to be indefinitely held in custody because they were too dangerous for release or transfer. It also called for Guantanamo to be closed within one year of the signing of the order. </p>
<p>As a professor of public law whose research and scholarship focusing on the Obama presidency and its counterterrorism strategies, I would suggest that Obama will end his term in office without achieving this priority objective.</p>
<h2>A legal black hole</h2>
<p>Even before Obama took office, Guantanamo prison camp had developed a reputation as a <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1523512&fileId=S0020589300067427">legal black hole</a> into which those who were captured in the war on terror were unceremoniously dumped.</p>
<p>During his first term, the president tried to acquire the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-defense-guantanamo-20150818-story.html">Thomson Correctional Center</a>, a new <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126118115734797895">vacant</a> super-max security prison located in northwestern Illinois, as the site to send the remaining detainees. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94434/original/image-20150910-27313-2gd88t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thomson Correctional Facility.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/64141731@N03/14440261393/in/photolist-o137C2-nWd9jL-nY93JQ-nWd8fG">EarlRShumaker/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120820/news/708209952/">Congress</a>, which was controlled by Democrats in 2010, refused to support any requested military funding to achieve the president’s objective. In the past four years, with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the president’s ability to shut down the prison has grown more remote.</p>
<p>The president’s efforts to shut down Guantanamo have even been resisted by members of his own administration. When news broke that Chuck Hagel was leaving his position as Secretary of Defense after less than two years on the job, Hagel’s reservations about releasing Guantanamo detainees had reportedly been a <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/01/24/379587702/closing-gitmo-going-to-be-very-difficult-hagel-says">principal cause</a> for his departure. Interestingly, current Secretary of Defense Ash Carter appears to have <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ash-carter-guantanamo-bay-obama-119328">similar concerns</a> about this issue. To date, he has refused to authorize any new transfers. </p>
<p>Under current law, Carter must assert to Congress that the United States has taken adequate measures to mitigate any risks posed by release of a detainee. That certainly can and does frustrate the president who is, after all, commander-in-chief of the United States. </p>
<p>There are 116 men held at Guantanamo with almost half eligible for immediate release. That number is down significantly from the 240 who were being held when Obama took office, but most of the successful transfers occurred during his first term.</p>
<p>Currently there exists no possibility that any of the detainees can be sent to the United States due to a <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/us-congress-approves-defense-budget/2557635.html">ban passed by Congress</a>. Furthermore, there is an extensive process that requires multiple agency approval prior to any of those are eligible for release. </p>
<h2>A renewed push</h2>
<p>US Secretary of State John Kerry last month appointed Lee Wolosky as <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/06/244494.htm">a special representative</a> to effectuate the closure of Guantanamo Bay. The administration also <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-closing-gitmo-guantanamo/2015/08/19/id/670932/">confirmed</a> that President Obama is developing a closure plan before the president’s second term expires. Still, it is doubtful that this objective will be achieved by the 15th anniversary of 9/11. </p>
<p>Congress has just returned from its late summer recess. It has been reported that several lawmakers in both houses are attempting to impose even stricter constraints on conditions for release of detainees to be imposed in the annual <a href="http://time.com/3968292/guantanamo-bay-close-obama/">National Defense Authorization Act</a>. Republicans in particular have maintained that as long as we keep fighting the war on terrorism against the Islamic State, there should be a total ban on releasing any detainee regardless of his eligibility status. Senator John McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a strong proponent of closing the prison and he has advocated for Congress to have the ability to review the White House’s plan for shutting down Guantanamo as part of the NDAA for the next fiscal year. </p>
<p>This indefensible paralysis was described most eloquently by retired Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens during <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/while-guantanamo-logjam-endures-some-prisoners-could-be-freed.html?_r=0">a speech</a> he delivered in May: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The onerous provisions … which have hindered the president’s ability to close
Guantanamo, make no sense, and have no precedent in our history…Congress’s actions are even more irrational than the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47339/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leonard Cutler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The US president has faced opposition from Republicans, Democrats and even two of his own secretaries of defense in trying to close Gitmo.Leonard Cutler, Professor of Political Science, Siena CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/346672014-11-25T10:02:55Z2014-11-25T10:02:55ZHagelian dialectics: Chuck gets the chop<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65447/original/image-20141125-2362-ny6ujd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Michael Reynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To lose one Secretary of Defense might be considered unfortunate. To have lost three and to be looking for a fourth looks like something more fundamental and systemic. The early departure of Chuck Hagel has been used by the Obama administration’s growing band of critics to claim that there is something about the way the White House does business that creates the need for sacrificial lambs – if that’s quite the way to describe someone who saw active service in Vietnam.</p>
<p>Hagel’s critics – of whom there is suddenly no shortage – argue that he has struggled to define a coherent grand strategy and was unable to win all-important internal policy debates within White House. Falling out with powerful Obama favorites like national security advisor Susan Rice over American policy toward Syria plainly didn’t help Hagel’s cause either. But it’s worth considering what success actually looks in a job that has become increasingly complex and political.</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that whatever personal qualities Hagel may or may not have had, the principal tasks he was given were essentially unachievable and irreconcilable. On the one hand, Hagel was charged with reducing American defence spending while simultaneously ensuring that its military was capable of addressing a range of threats that seemed to show few signs of diminishing – unlike the funding available to underwrite America’s hegemonic ambitions.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the nature of contemporary security challenges made the development of an effective response increasingly difficult. Even in comparatively straitened times, the US still has by far the most powerful military capability in the world – for all the good it does the American people. The paradoxical reality is that the US is unable to deploy its overwhelming military might decisively against enemies whose principal weapons are ideological.</p>
<p>Even traditional potential foes like North Korea or Russia remain largely undeterred by American military might. Effective economic sanctions are another thing altogether, but these are not generally the first weapons of choice for defence secretaries anywhere, more’s the pity.</p>
<p>The poisonous domestic politics that have all but paralysed the Obama administration at times are undoubtedly making it evermore difficult for the US to present an image of itself as an effective and decisive foreign policy actor. That this may have more to do with the nature of asymmetric warfare and non-traditional security threats that defy easy resolution is a possibility that gets scant attention in America’s increasingly toxic and polarised domestic politics.</p>
<p>The pressure on the Obama administration to “do something” and act decisively in policy terms has been reinforced by the Democrats’ drubbing in the midterm elections. All of this only serves to reinforce the impression that American security and foreign policy is driven primarily by domestic political considerations rather than any immediate existential threat to American citizens, much less the American state.</p>
<p>There is, perhaps, nothing surprising in this observation, but some of its implications are not always readily appreciated. Even those of us who are broadly in sympathy with Barack Obama’s much-derided speech on climate change at the G20 would have to concede that this was largely driven by America’s domestic political realities. A preoccupation with his “legacy” undoubtedly looms larger by the day in Obama’s thinking, and this has direct consequences for the final stages of his administration and its impact on the wider world.</p>
<p>Again, there is nothing surprising about any of this. What matters is the impact of America’s political priorities are likely to have on foe and friend alike as they are caught in the policy backwash. For staunch and generally uncritical supporters of American policy like Australia, this has come as an unwelcome and unsettling surprise. It shouldn’t have done: powerful countries tend to do what they will for contingent national reasons. The influence and sensitivities of even the most useful of allies are of secondary importance.</p>
<p>The lasting significance of recent changes in America’s national security establishment, therefore, at least as far as Australia is concerned, is firstly, that major changes in policy orientation and strategic goals are likely to be determined with little consultation with key allies.</p>
<p>Secondly, and most importantly, perhaps, it really does make a difference who is in charge. Some people may be judged more effective than others at actually implementing policy, but the priorities and purposes to which America’s – or anybody else’s, for that matter – immense power is put is determined by the make up of particular administrations. </p>
<p>We may get to see what a more “decisive” approach to foreign and strategic policy looks like in two years time when a new president is inaugurated. For all its problems, we may yet look back on the Obama administration with nostalgic admiration. There are worse faults in strategic policy than excess caution. We may also come to reassess Hagel’s contribution and approach as a consequence, too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34667/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
To lose one Secretary of Defense might be considered unfortunate. To have lost three and to be looking for a fourth looks like something more fundamental and systemic. The early departure of Chuck Hagel…Mark Beeson, Professor of International Politics, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/114892013-01-08T05:26:14Z2013-01-08T05:26:14ZObama’s new national security team goes to war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19037/original/frd78msq-1357619273.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Barack Obama officially nominates Chuck Hagel as Secretary for Defence.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Battle is being joined in Washington, where President Barack Obama, has <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/07/politics/hagel-defense/index.html">nominated</a> a former Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, to be the next Secretary of Defense. </p>
<p>He has also nominated <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/07/politics/cia-director/index.html">John Brennan</a>, his current counterterrorism adviser and a veteran of the intelligence community in the Clinton and Bush administrations, to be the Director of Central Intelligence (or DCI - there is no position called CIA Director, although you will see it in the media). </p>
<p>They join Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential nominee, tapped by Obama to be the next Secretary of State. While all three will likely ultimately win confirmation, Obama’s new national security team – and particularly Hagel – must prepare for the most bruising cabinet confirmation fight in nearly a quarter of a century.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19039/original/4vbb3jmx-1357619737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Obama formally nominates John Brennan to be Director of Central Intelligence - or the head of the CIA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The United States constitution <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf">requires</a> that the Senate approve presidential nominations for Supreme Court justices, cabinet officers, and agency heads. </p>
<p>Although all nominees must submit to thorough background screenings (you wouldn’t want someone who could be blackmailed over an extramarital affair like recent DCI <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231859/David-Petraeus-affair-new-Lewinsky-scandal-Paula-Broadwell-Jill-Kelley-turn-Monica-aides-legal-advice.html">David Petraeus</a>), and although senators will often present hostile questions to nominees in confirmation hearings in an attempt to embarrass them or damage the president politically, it is rare that even an opposition majority in the Senate will actually vote down a nomination.</p>
<p>The last time that this happened was with another former Republican senator selected to be Secretary of Defense. In 1989, incoming President George HW Bush picked fellow Texan <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/06/obituaries/john-g-tower-65-longtime-senator-from-texas.html">John Tower</a>, but background investigations revealed a history of intemperate gambling, drinking and womanising and the Democratic majority rejected him. (Bush’s substitute, who was approved easily, was Wyoming congressman Dick Cheney.)</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19040/original/2bgbfy9t-1357620117.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1015&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has been nominated as Secretary of State.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Shawn Thew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this instance, the dynamics are surprising and speak to domestic politics as much as foreign policy. Ironically, Kerry, the liberal lawmaker and former party standard bearer, has enjoyed the most support of the three nominees among conservative Republicans, while the same senators have denounced Brennan and Hagel. </p>
<p>Obama was known to be considering his representative to the UN, Susan Rice, for the position at State, but she <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/13/politics/rice-withdraws-secretary-of-state/index.html">withdrew herself</a> when Republicans signaled that they would oppose her and use the hearings to try to tar the administration over the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221596/Libya-consulate-attack-Second-U-S-building-attacked-Benghazi-CIA-base.html">attack</a> on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which has become a cause celebre for the Right.</p>
<p>With Kerry, who has expressed an interest in being chief diplomat for years, however, Republicans smell an opportunity to pick up his Senate seat in a special election. Republican Scott Brown, who won an upset victory to claim the other Massachusetts seat in a 2010 special election, was just defeated but remains popular and would be a formidable candidate. Some Republicans have <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/30/graham-clinton-must-testify-on-benghazi-before-kerry-nomination-process/">threatened</a> to block a vote on Kerry until outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi, but otherwise expect an easy confirmation process.</p>
<p>Obama considered Brennan to lead the CIA when he assumed office four years ago, but the potential DCI nomination ran into opposition from Democrats who were troubled by his role in President George W. Bush’s War on Terror. </p>
<p>Brennan had supported the implementation of rendition and enhanced interrogations, as well as immunity for telecommunications companies that had provided the intelligence community with information that was outside the legal limits of domestic surveillance.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19041/original/dq53g2mn-1357620632.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi last year that killed Ambassador Chris Stephens has become a hot political issue for Republicans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Stringer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While some Democrats who opposed Brennan in 2009 now say that they are prepared to support him, Brennan is also now seen as a proponent of the widening use of <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/international/21565614-america-uses-drones-lot-secret-and-largely-unencumbered-declared-rules-worries">aerial drone strikes</a> (and extrajudicial killings) as a tool of covert warfare. </p>
<p>Critics of the Petraeus tenure at the CIA had already charged the Agency with mutating from an intelligence agency into a paramilitary force, and the Brennan nomination will reopen that debate. </p>
<p>Republican Senator John McCain, whose experience as a POW in Vietnam has made him a strong critic of the use of torture even while he supports all other conservative national security positions, has <a href="http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=16503079-cb46-3a0a-a941-12eb7e0eb559">signaled</a> that he intends to use Brennan’s hearings to critically examine the Obama administration in this regard as well.</p>
<p>Finally, the one nominee who might actually be in peril is Hagel, a conservative Vietnam veteran who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during 1997-2009 but who now must testify before it with enemies on both left and right. </p>
<p>Liberals are wary of Hagel leading the Pentagon because he was a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/judging-chuck-hagels-gay-rights-record.html">vocal opponent</a> of allowing gays to serve in the military, a policy that was only enacted last year after two decades or rancorous debate. Some grumble more generally that Democrats need to buck their habit of regularly picking Republicans for Secretary of Defense to try to show that they are “tough” on national security. But Hagel is currently reaching out to gay rights groups and retains a number of Democratic friends in the chamber. It would seem unlikely that several Democrats would actually defect and humiliate President Obama.</p>
<p>It is among his former colleagues in the Republican caucus, and in conservative interest groups, that Hagel will face his most concerted opposition. Without Democratic defections they will not have the numbers to defeat him, but they have <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-sees-political-payback-in-hagel-pick-85867.html?hp=t1_3">signaled</a> that they intend to make his confirmation politically costly for the White House. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19042/original/j8w3y3sx-1357621006.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CIA drone attacks in Pakistan have killed many anti-American militants and are deeply unpopular with the wider population.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/MK Chaudry</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The animus stems from the fact that Hagel was, while reliably conservative on fiscal and domestic social issues and an early supporter of the Iraq War, an increasingly vocal critic of the Bush War on Terror and the neoconservative agenda of regime change through military intervention. </p>
<p>By the time he declined to run for a third term in 2008, he was openly clashing with McCain, his party’s nominee, over these issues and his standing as a Republican became questionable, particularly as he seemed to support Obama and later donated money to a Nebraska Democrat running for Senate.</p>
<p>While some Republican congressional leaders have stated that they will oppose Hagel because they believe he seeks to retreat from American leadership in the world, many are stating that they cannot support him because he is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-politics/pentagon-nominee-chuck-hagel-rejects-anti-israel-tag/story-fn9hkofv-1226549308536">anti-Israel</a>, with some going far as to suggest that he is anti-Semitic and claim that he has made negative remarks about “the Jews”. </p>
<p>Hagel has stood by past comments that he believes that the interests of the United States rather than Israel should determine his votes on Middle East policy. His defenders have charged his critics with being neoconservatives who really oppose him because he would block their ultimate goal, a preemptive strike against Iran in the name of defending Israel against a potential nuclear attack, something that Hagel has cautioned would ultimately require enormous sacrifice.</p>
<p>Barring any embarrassing revelations rising from his past, the best option for Hagel’s foes to stop him would be to filibuster his nomination (use Senate procedures to prevent debate from ending and thus ensuring that there is never a vote). Conservatives have shown a willingness to use chamber rules to prevent confirmation votes in the past. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19044/original/bfyp33r4-1357621218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 111th United States Senate members. Democrats are trying to change the rules to prevent “filibustering” and other delaying tactics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">United States Senate</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moderate Republican Governor William Weld was blocked from becoming ambassador to Mexico (on the grounds that he was weak on drug enforcement) and James Hormel’s nomination to be ambassador to Luxembourg was filibustered because he was gay.</p>
<p>But filibustering the nominee for Secretary of Defense is another matter, and particularly because members of the expanded Democratic majority in the Senate are currently pushing to revise the rules to make such parliamentary tactics more difficult. If Republicans attempt to thwart Obama’s nomination of Hagel, it could push senior Democrats who are currently skeptical of rewriting the chamber’s rules to accept reform. Blocking Hagel would probably not be worth the cost.</p>
<p>So, even as Kerry sails forward unopposed, Brennan proceeds cautiously along the front lines, and both sides dig their trenches before the coming Hagel skirmish, it seems reasonable to project that Obama’s new team will be confirmed. </p>
<p>Kerry and Hagel, the two veterans of both Vietnam and the Senate, are expected to work unusually well together, and to support White House efforts to trim the military, another contentious fight in Washington. </p>
<p>What remains to be seen are how this new team of insiders will face the diplomatic and security challenges bound to arise in Obama’s second term.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11489/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Malet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Battle is being joined in Washington, where President Barack Obama, has nominated a former Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, to be the next Secretary of Defense. He has also nominated John Brennan…David Malet, Lecturer in International Relations, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.