For the Defense

China is beefing up its military and bullying its neighbors, the apocalyptic suicide cult running Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons with an arms race in the always-volatile Middle East bound to follow, Russia has been gradually re-establishing its Soviet empire while extending its insidious influence even farther, and in every corner of the world there is still the usual portion of crazy people with guns. This seems an odd moment for a peace dividend, but the administration is proposing drastic military budget cuts.

There are good geo-political reasons for the proposal unveiled Monday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, we are told, but none seem convincing. The leaner budget will provide a meaner military by eliminating outdated Cold War weapons systems and emphasizing high-tech cyber-warfare over the old-fashioned armed servicemen shooting at the enemy approach to conflicts, according to the Defense Department’s argument, but we can’t help thinking that the aircraft designed to take out Soviet tanks will do just as well against any other country’s armor and that there are likely to be occasions when shooting an enemy will be more effective than disabling his lap-top computer and cutting off his Twitter account. Hagel’s proposal would reduce the number of troops to the lowest level since 1940, a date that has some resonance for the few Americans who still have some rudimentary knowledge of 20th Century history, and includes reductions in military benefits that would make service even less appealing for those who would remain on the watch. If you don’t buy that, there’s a backup argument that the proposed budget out-spends the sequester agreement those dovish Republicans imposed on the hawkish administration, but this ignores the well-documented fact that the sequester was the administration’s idea and that the Republicans would gladly agree to any deal that would beef up the military with money taken from elsewhere in the vast federal budget.

To believe that one have to believe that the Republicans have suddenly become the weak-on-defense party and is forcing pacifism on an administration eager to pursue a robust foreign policy backed up by a credible threat of force. The argument requires such an extraordinary feat of imagination that the press has already decided to go with the argument that a pre-World War II defense posture is the post-modern solution to national security at a time when seventh century theocracies have nearly arrived in the nuclear age. This is also a tough sell, of course, but given the public’s lack of interest in national security and its enthusiasm for the welfare benefits that will be spared by corresponding cuts in the military it might just work.

At least the public is wised up enough that no seems to be peddling the true rationale for the cuts. The smaller military fits nicely with the smaller role that the administration intends for America to play in the world’s affairs, but even the president no longer seems willing to convince anyone that this will bring peace. A belief in “soft power” and the president’s magical ability to charm dictatorial nations into peaceful co-existence with the democracies still informs every aspect of America’s foreign policy, but they no longer expect anyone else to believe it. The administration clearly believes that money from current and future generations of taxpayers is better spent on Obamaphones and advertisements touting the benefits of Obamacare than on national defense, but it is a hopeful sign that they have to get that message out to the grateful constituencies without being too noisy about it.

The Republicans, who we can hope are still hawkish as ever, might even be able to exploit that reticence to pass a more responsible budget and even force the president to sign it. Such a rare feat wouldn’t force the administration to pursue a more forcible foreign policy, but at least it would leave sufficient force for future administrations to do so.

— Bud Norman

The Hagel Show

Confirmation hearings may be dull fare for the average American, but to the dedicated current events enthusiast they often provide some of the best theater that politics has to offer. Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel’s appearance on Thursday before a Senate committee, for instance, was classic farce.

The former Senator from Nebraska gave such an inept performance that even the most sympathetic media panned it. Politico reluctantly conceded that he “stumbled,” The Hill described him as “shaky,” and The Washington Post went so far as to concede that he “faced withering criticism.” All of the sound bites that found their way into the radio reports gave the same impression, with Hagel stammering lame responses to the most predictable questions.

Because Hagel is a Republican, and with a fairly conservative record on domestic issues, the administration might have hoped that he would be spared a thorough interrogation by the members of his party. If so, the administration has overestimated the opposition’s party loyalty. Hagel is a throwback to the long-ago isolationist era of the Republican party, with a strange affinity for Iran’s brutal theocracy, a suspicious antipathy for Israel’s embattled democracy, a record of wobbliness on the Iraq war, and the “R” behind his name was not enough to shield him from questions about all of it.

Sen. Jim Inhofe asked about the fact that Iran’s government has explicitly endorsed Hagel nomination, and Hagel replied that “I have a difficult enough time with American politics, Senator. I have no idea, but thank you. I’ll be glad to respond further to the record.” In response to a question by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Hagel described Iran’s government as “elected and legitimate” before walking it back during friendlier questioning from a Democratic Senator. Sen. Ted Cruz quoted comments Hagel had made to the terror-friendly Al Jazeera network about America as “the world’s bully,” forcing Hagel to insist that his words did not mean what they clearly did mean, and Sen. Lindsey Graham asked about Hagel’s stated view that the “Israel lobby” “intimidates” the Senate, forcing Hagel to admit that he could not name one Senator who was intimidated by Israel nor one “dumb thing” the American government has done as a result of Israeli influence. Hagel’s distinguished record of service in the Vietnam War might have been expected to earn him some gentle treatment, but no one out-Vietnam vets Sen. John McCain, who grilled Hagel on his opposition to the surge strategy that allowed an American withdrawal from a relatively peaceful Iraq, and after saying that he would “defer to the judgment of history” Hagel seemed to sputter his insistence that he was still right about the surge being “the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.”

It was so embarrassing that the press had no choice but to admit it, but the reluctant criticism was all about how Hagel was simply unprepared, or out of practice after a few years of retirement from politics, and that he’s a Republican after all. This focus on Hagel spared the press from pondering the possibility that the real problem is his world view, clearly shared by the administration that seeks his appointment, which simply can bear such scrutiny no matter the apologist.

— Bud Norman

Obama’s Diversity Problem

Regular readers of this publication are no doubt aware that we are not admirers of the Obama administration, but we now find ourselves in the unaccustomed position of defending it against charges of racism and sexism.

The president has lately been forming a brand new “inner circle” of cabinet members and advisors, the old one apparently having decided to get out while the getting is good and cash in on the memoir-and-lecture racket, and there seems to be some controversy afoot regarding how very white and male the newcomers are. The New York Times weighed in with a story about it, complete photographic evidence of the new staff’s offending racial and sexual characteristics, and White House press secretary Jay Carney was compelled to defend the administration’s hiring policies during a recent press briefing.

“The president does believe that diversity is very important,” said Carney, who is himself a white male, “and he also believes that picking the absolute right person for each job is very important.”

Such sentiments should be celebrated, and we wish that more voters had taken a similarly meritocratic approach to choosing a president in the last election, so we shall not take issue with the race and sex of the president’s appointees. Some of our best friends are both white and male, and we have no doubt that such people could make capable public servants. Carney was speaking specifically of Senators John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who have been tapped for the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense posts, which does not exactly bolster our point, but we’d like to believe their obvious unfitness for those offices has nothing to do with their being white guys.

Still, the Obama critics should feel free to revel in the delicious irony of the president’s apparent preference for white males. He won re-election by warning the distaff voters of the Republicans’ “war on women” and telling African-American voters that “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains,” while his supporters explicitly cited the president’s swarthiness as one of the main reasons to vote for him, so it’s somewhat gratifying to see the president coming under the fire for making choices that aren’t based on race and sex.

If only the president’s appreciation for diversity extended to a variety of ideas and experiences, and the white guys he was choosing weren’t all left-wingers from the public sector, we’d almost be hopeful about the second term.

— Bud Norman

Unlucky Number

One year always leads to another, and we shudder to think where a year such as 2012 might lead.

Journalistic tradition dictates that an end-of-the year column either look back at the past 12 months or prognosticate about the upcoming dozen, and at this particular point in history neither task is appealing. The past year saw the United States go yet another trillion dollars and more into debt, with slow economic growth and fewer gainfully employed workers to show for it, the citizenry’s increased dependence on a government that is increasingly bossy about every aspect of life, various scandals from the cover-up of a botched gun-running operation to the “sloppy” foreign policy that resulted in the death of an ambassador and three other brave Americans in Libya and a body blow to free speech rights here, the ascendance of a belligerent and supremacist Islamism in key countries of the Middle East with American support, and an ever stupider popular culture. By far the biggest story of the year was an electoral majority of the country’s decision to vote for more of the same — lest those evil Republicans kill off Big Bird, continue their dastardly if entirely fictional war on women’s private parts, and generally harsh everyone’s buzz — so it’s hard to envision a reversal of this bad fortune.

All indications are that America will begin the new year by barreling over the “fiscal cliff,” that dire-sounding name given the across-the-board tax hikes and arbitrary spending cuts that almost everyone agrees will lead to a recession. Some sort of patchwork agreement remains a possibility, but although it will surely be hailed as further proof of Obama’s transcendent genius it will still involve job-killing taxes that won’t raise sufficient revenue to make a dent in the deficits. Indeed, the deficits are likely to swell when more workers sign up for the never-ending unemployment benefits and a slew of new entitlement programs are deemed necessary to deal with economic downturn. This might even be the year that America’s looming debt crisis finally arrives, and even if the country’s economy continues to crawl along the prospects for the rest of the world remain unpromising. The prospect of a Secretary of State John Kerry and a Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel certainly do not bode well.

None of this is any reason, of course, not to celebrate heartily tonight as the clock turns over to a brand new year. Nor is it any reason not to make the most of the next 365 days, whatever they might bring, and perhaps even prosper and be happy. Keep clinging bitterly to God and your guns, at least for so long as both are still legal, and give this whole 2013 idea a good shot.

— Bud Norman