Althouse: "Chuck Hagel was exactly the defense secretary that President Obama wanted. He wanted to take the temperature down a notch after Gates...."

December 1, 2014

"Chuck Hagel was exactly the defense secretary that President Obama wanted. He wanted to take the temperature down a notch after Gates...."

"He didn't want any more rock star military generals, he didn't want, you know, this constant fighting with the Pentagon over troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Chuck Hagel gave him everything that he wanted. I think at the end of the day though, Chuck Hagel was viewed by the White House as almost too passive. But I think the real reason why he was let go-- is because the White House, after the midterms, felt like they needed to show that they were doing something, they were shaking up their national security team. The reality is, he didn't want to shake up his national security team."

Said NYT reporter Helene Cooper on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Chuck Todd — the moderator, who'd asked her why Hagel was fired" — interjected after that first sentence: "He wanted a smaller personality." That is, Obama, when he picked Hagel, was looking for "a smaller personality." So... was Hagel too small or not small enough... or just the wrong kind of small... or the right kind of big enough to be worth making an example of? And by "right kind," I mean, he's a Republican. That's always been useful.

43 comments:

Barry Dauphin said...: Next SecDef=Goldilocks.; 12/1/14, 9:18 AM
mccullough said...: Panetta was Defense Secretary after Gates. So the reporters quote doesn't make sense.

Hagel was fired because the military people were right and Obama was wrong.; 12/1/14, 9:21 AM
Wince said...: Steve Martin?; 12/1/14, 9:27 AM
traditionalguy said...: Destroying the Military is most effective by destroying the leadership. Drone Killer Obama is finished getting reelected now. His true goals are on their last lap and in the homestretch.

Destroying the USA from inside is "unexpectedly" an Obama fait accomplis in the Military, in the electrical power system, in the world trade dollar, and along the border.; 12/1/14, 9:30 AM
Unknown said...: Everything is about optics with this administration. No substance. Just media water-carrying, excuses, blame, and shape shifting illusions. The Obama administration is a Potemkin village.; 12/1/14, 9:30 AM
Skipper said...: We got a small POTUS, why not a small Secretary?; 12/1/14, 9:32 AM
Hagar said...: Chuck Hagel is Chuck Hagel and will never change, and that is why he was fired.

I have never agreed with Chuck Hagel, and when he was appointed, I said I hoped he would be as much trouble for the Democrats as has been for the Republicans. Alas, that was not to be, as he did not last long enough.
However, I have never thought he was a "small" man.; 12/1/14, 9:32 AM
PB said...: I suspect that even Hagel was not compliant enough with Obama's wishes.

Like many un or under reported stories, the real story here has been the removal of many senior commanders that pushed back against Obama's desire to reduce our military capability and readiness. They have been replaced by staff more obedient to the political correct goals of the left-wing.; 12/1/14, 9:34 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Panetta was the SecDef that Obama thought he wanted, until Panetta got the job and within 60 days announced that the Obama defense cuts were going too far. As a former OMB Director, Obama thought P would be his hatchet man, but Panetta is to much of a Patriot and too smart to get blamed for that.

So Hagel in, Panetta out.

SR and VJ wanted a SecDef that would not get in the way of WH Defense strategy.

Hagel may not be the brightest bulb, but he could tell that a half assed plan that just pricked ISIS was just going to cost lives and treasure and result in defeat. He listen to the generals too much so he had to go.

Expect the Current DEPSECDEF to be Acting for a long time... Unless Ashton Carter will take it. I think he might if he thinks Flournoy has the edge for Hillary's SECDEF.; 12/1/14, 9:36 AM
pm317 said...: So... was Hagel too small or not small enough... or just the wrong kind of small... or the right kind of big enough to be worth making an example of? And by "right kind," I mean, he's a Republican. That's always been useful.

This is what ValJar was debating in her own puny little head before she told Obama that Hagel should go..; 12/1/14, 9:38 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: The right kind of small is whomever they can get that will take marching orders form Valarie Jarrett, and will refrain from pointing out what an ignorant and feckless c*nt she is.; 12/1/14, 9:44 AM
Jess said...: If you stay in a high position with Obama, you either hold his mirror, or you're out. I have a feeling Hagel became tired with holding Obama's mirror.; 12/1/14, 9:45 AM
traditionalguy said...: As for optics, the MO from the boy king from the beginning has been to cast around him old white man doofus type for comparison purposes, but younger over educated but inexperienced women for all slots with real power, so that they know their benefactor King expects their loyalty to alternate reality lies.

Biden and Hagel served his purpose. No American man will accept that roll again. Eyes have been opened.; 12/1/14, 9:47 AM
holdfast said...: It took Bush's entire first term to purge the idiot political generals bequeathed to him by the Clinton administration. I wonder how long it will take Obama's successor, or if she will even try.; 12/1/14, 9:47 AM
lgv said...: Thank you. You have quickly gleaned how absurd this line of reasoning is. I wonder if Cooper was trying to trivialize the firing, or minimize the perceived differences between Hagel and WH policy.

Apparently, he was too passive in telling rock star generals to shut up and not give their true opinions. Don't listen to generals. What do they know?; 12/1/14, 9:51 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Obama's response to his party's mid-term shellacking by the Republicans was to fire the only Republican in his cabinet. That was quite different from Bush's response to his party's 2006 losses. Seems like that should be more newsworthy.; 12/1/14, 9:54 AM
F said...: Does Obama know what he wants in a SecDef? He kept Gates on thinking that would sit well with Republican lawmakers but realized after a while that Gates was not going to downsize fast enough or far enough.

Enter Leon Panetta, a pliable (he thought) Democrat who would do what was necessary. Panetta realized after a time that he didn't want to be captain of the Titanic and he bailed.

Who better to replace Panetta than a Republican Senator with anti-war credentials? But even Hagel could see that he was being made fall guy for a stupid policy and tried to push back. Now he's history.

The problem now for the WH is to find someone who will act like he or she is defending the interests of a super-large institution that is unliked by Obama supporters, yet at the same time allow money to be siphoned off for favored social programs and let Susan Rice call the shots on policy issues.

Anyone who wants to defend the budget of the current Defense Department is not a good fit, and anyone who has any clue at all about how to use DefDept resources to solve world problems is not a good fit.

That narrows the field to a retired community organizer from the far left. Fill in the blanks.; 12/1/14, 9:55 AM
The Drill SGT said...: SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
The right kind of small is whomever they can get that will take marching orders form Valarie Jarrett, and will refrain from pointing out what an ignorant and feckless c*nt she is.

change the references to Susan Rice, and I agree.

I don't see VJ caring about Hagel except that he might hurt BHO. SR cares about implementing her feckless policies; 12/1/14, 9:57 AM
Sebastian said...: Hagel = big enough doormat.

The real question is how much the fifth column in the WH can degrade US strength and global position in the next two years.; 12/1/14, 10:07 AM
mccullough said...: It was also dumb to fire Hagel without having a replacement ready.; 12/1/14, 10:19 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: There is something very odd about how Obama makes personnel decisions.
-Obama chose Biden for the VP slot.
-As a state legislator, Obama opposed the Iraq War. Both of his Sec of State pics supported the Iraq War at the time Obama opposed it.
-As senators, both Hagel and Obama opposed the surge of 2006. The surge was successful. I've read that Obama picked Hagel in large part because Hagel publicly opposed the surge strategy.; 12/1/14, 10:24 AM
Hagar said...: That speaks to White House competence.
It does not look good when the prospective nominees, one after the other, say they want to "spend more time with their families."; 12/1/14, 10:24 AM
Dan Hossley said...: Hagel was hired to downsize the military so that Obama could spend more on domestic welfare programs.

Hagel was fired because of the steady stream of leaks from the Pentagon about the WH micromanaging the war on ISIS.

How could Obama blame the Generals for his failure when it is widely known that his team called the shots?

Comparisons to LBJ are not useful and won't be tolerated by the regime.; 12/1/14, 10:26 AM
Michael said...: Strong men of independent accomplishment don't last around Obama - Gates, Rahm, Bill Daily, even Hagel. Only poseurs like Kerry or career-long apparatchiks. The dominating personalities around him are women - Val Jarrett, Michele, maybe DWS. There was a word for that, back in the day.; 12/1/14, 10:27 AM
Lance said...: And Chuck Hagel gave him everything that he wanted.

No, he didn't. When the President dismissed ISIS as "junior varsity", Hagel flatly disagreed and described ISIS as a major threat. Now the President wants to increase force levels in Iraq, but Hagel was hired to draw them down.

The problem isn't that Hagel agreed too much, the problem is the President refused to listen to Gates in 2009, and consequently pursued the wrong policies.; 12/1/14, 11:17 AM
SteveR said...: I doubt it was that complicated for POTUS but clearly ValJar and Bennie Rhodes out some thought into it.; 12/1/14, 11:59 AM
chillblaine said...: Hagel was fired because Obama wants to run the Pentagon from the West Wing. If Team Hillary hadn't hired Tommy Vietor, he would have got the nom. Dude, that was like two years ago!; 12/1/14, 12:04 PM
RonF said...: Don't you just love interviewers who put words in the mouths of the people they're interviewing? No possibility of shaping the news there, is there?; 12/1/14, 12:54 PM
RonF said...: "It took Bush's entire first term to purge the idiot political generals bequeathed to him by the Clinton administration. I wonder how long it will take Obama's successor, or if she will even try."

I doubt it'll be a "she". Condoleeza Rice has repeatedly said she doesn't want to run.; 12/1/14, 12:57 PM
FleetUSA said...: This approach with the Sec of Def doesn't seem to help in projecting America's resolve and strength on the international stage. Yes, it will be BH0's Def Dept but others will continue to sneer at us. Bad news.; 12/1/14, 2:52 PM
FleetUSA said...: I guess POTUS wants someone that can really bend over for all comers. That's not American either.

The military management has been decimated since 2009. Next we'll have Private Schultz as Sec Def.; 12/1/14, 2:54 PM
Beldar said...: Hagel is a conspicuous idiot, and a Republican.

Thus endeth his job qualifications for the Obama Cabinet, and they were sufficient — for a time.; 12/1/14, 2:54 PM
Beldar said...: Excuse me, I misspoke. "Ostensibly a Republican," I ought have written.; 12/1/14, 2:55 PM
Murph said...: Rich Lowry at NRO (via Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt 12/1/2014):

“I always thought Hagel was brought on basically to be a nonfactor and was admirably performing in that role.”; 12/1/14, 3:05 PM
Trashhauler said...: What they need is a SECDEF who cannot be bothered to sit through all those briefings, with their constant moaning about threats and capabilities and whatnot. What they need is someone with an 8 handicap who doesn't mind losing a $100 Nassau.; 12/1/14, 3:07 PM
jr565 said...: Hagel was a repub who sided with the dems on the need to shrink the military. So he was brought on as cover to show that obama was reaching across aisle and those arguing against his policies were extremist war mongers since EVEN chuch hagel agrees and he's a republican.

Even chuch saw through our ineptness dealing with ISIS though. When you lose chuch hagel....; 12/1/14, 4:08 PM
Wince said...: True to form, Obama turned "Hagel" on his head.; 12/1/14, 5:03 PM
Bobby said...: "But I think the real reason why he was let go-- is because the White House, after the midterms, felt like they needed to show that they were doing something, they were shaking up their national security team. The reality is, he didn't want to shake up his national security team."

This is has been Foreign Policy's thesis for the last two weeks, essentially: public opinion basically forced Obama to sack someone. But he couldn't fire someone who was actually responsible for the mismanagement because he likes them, so instead he just did a show execution to make everyone feel better.

If it's accurate, we shouldn't expect anything to get much better, at least not because of anything we do (fundamental rule of effects-based operations: never underestimate the enemy's ability to lose a war despite our greatest efforts to make them win). The fact that the strongest SECDEF nominees are treating the office like it's radioactive suggests that at least some of them agree with the thesis.; 12/1/14, 6:09 PM
F said...: Well the god news for Hagel is that he was working for Obama and not Kim Jong Un. Not that the process was different, but that the result was that Hagel didn't have to fend off vicious dogs or catch a mortar round with his hat. Otherwise, what's the diff?; 12/1/14, 6:28 PM
RecChief said...: what he wanted was a dovish "republican" who wasn't very bright, and who would provide cover while the administration dismantled the evil military that hoovers all the tax dollars that could go to help gentle giants bound for college.

What he got was Hagel. He got what he wanted after all; 12/1/14, 8:31 PM
Michael K said...: The Obama staffers are like cats with a mouse. One twitch of his tail and they pounce. Lots of senior military have learned that the hard way. God help us if we are ever attacked, especially by Muslims.; 12/1/14, 8:52 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: I have never agreed with Chuck Hagel, and when he was appointed, I said I hoped he would be as much trouble for the Democrats as has been for the Republicans. Alas, that was not to be, as he did not last long enough.
However, I have never thought he was a "small" man.

I'm reminded of the anecdote from one of Stalone's films - don't remember the name. Something that took place in prison.

Anyway, they shot a scene with him and a few large actors playing guards. Stalone had the scene re-shot with shorter actors because he wanted to be the biggest man.; 12/2/14, 1:08 AM
Bob Loblaw said...: The fact that the strongest SECDEF nominees are treating the office like it's radioactive suggests that at least some of them agree with the thesis.

Who in his right mind would be Obama's Secretary of Defense? There's only downsides.; 12/2/14, 1:10 AM