Saturday, December 22, 2012

A defense secretary of their own

How bad has it gotten for the US antiwar movement? After the president its most prominent leaders supported in 2008 took George W. Bush's war on terror and institutionalized it, they have been at a strategic loss, unable to kick their dogmatic, electoral-minded tactics to the point that they are now engaged in an awkward campaign to get a conservative Republican appointed to administer Barack Obama's wars. Indeed, after getting a commander-in-chief of its own, the down-and-out antiwar movement is now angling to get its own defense secretary.

The logic behind the leftists for Chuck Hagel campaign -- sometimes unstated -- is not so much that he's a great guy, but that the people attacking him are even worse. And to be fair, they're right. Most of the people blasting the former Nebraska senator hail from the belligerent far right, primarily employed by neoconservative media outlets like the Weekly Standard and Washington Post. Their critique is that Hagel is no friend of the Jewish state, and perhaps even anti-Semitic, because he once made comments critical of its influential lobby in DC and opposed Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon (an undeniably good thing). He's also talked about giving diplomacy a shot with Iran, when the proper line is supposed to be "nah, fuck those guys."

Hagel has also come under fire from military lobbyists for his stated desire to cut bloat at the Pentagon, though it's worth remembering that Bush/Obama secretary of defense Robert Gates pledged the same thing while burning through the biggest military budgets in world history. In other words, the usual sky-is-falling crowd is making much ado about nothing with respect to a guy who, outside of a few maverick-y speeches over the years, adheres to the Washington consensus as much as the next old white guy. Their goal? Maybe a nice little war with a third-rate power and a bit larger share of the GDP. But like executives at Goldman Sachs, they know they're going to be pretty much fine no matter who is in office.

It would be one thing to simply point this out; that yes, some of the charges against Hagel can politely be called “silly.” One can disagree about the wisdom of Israeli wars, for instance, without being a raging anti-Semite, and indeed much of the Israeli establishment would privately concede their 2006 war was a bust. And with politicians talking of slashing Social Security, you damned well better believe it's not a gaffe to say maybe we ought to take a quick look at where half the average American's income tax goes: the military. Such a defense might have some value.

Unfortunately, that's not what the pro-Hagel campaign is doing. Instead, they're billing the fight over Hagel's nomination as a defining battle of Obama's second term. If Hagel wins, the argument goes, AIPAC loses, opening up the foreign policy debate in Washington and increasing the possibility of peace in our time. If his nomination goes down, however, that reinforces the idea that the hawkish foreign policy consensus in Washington shall not be challenged and that even the mildest criticisms of Israel cannot be tolerated. Some even suggest that who administers the Defense Department could decide if there's a war with Iran or not, perhaps forgetting the chain of command.

Indeed, most of Hagel's defenders aren't defending his occasionally heterodox views on Israel and unilateral sanctions (he's cool with the multilateral, 500,000-dead-children-in-Iraq kind), but rather trumpeting his commitment to orthodoxy. The Center for American Progress, for instance, has released a dossier detailing “Chuck Hagel's Pro-Israel Record,” noting his oft-stated verbal and legislative commitment to the “special relationship.” Some of his former staffers have also issued a fact sheet showing that all of Hagel's alleged heretical views are well within the hawkish mainstream.

Further left on the spectrum, it's not much different. The Washington-based group Just Foreign Policy, for instance, has revived Democratic rhetoric from 2004 to pitch the fight over the potential Hagel nomination in black and white terms of good and evil.

The Obama-hating Neocon Right is trying to 'Swift Boat' the expected nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense,” the group states in a recent email blast to supporters. Neoconservatives have been “making up a fantasy scare story that Hagel . . . is 'anti-Israel,'” it continues, helpfully informing us that the Hagel the neocons make out to be such a reasonable guy is indeed a fantasy. Finally, it ends with an appeal: “We cannot stand idly by as the neocons stage a coup of our foreign policy,” followed by a petition supporting Hagel's nomination hosted by sure to defeat any military coup.

In a blog, the group's policy director, Robert Naiman, likewise pitches the battle over Hagel's nomination in terms of Obama vs. The Warmongers. “Hagel represents the foreign policy that the majority of Americans voted for in 2008 and 2012: less war, more diplomacy,” he writes, pointing to past statements he's made about the wisdom of a war with Iran.

Of course, the unfortunate truth is that American's didn't vote for “less war, more diplomacy,” as comforting as that thought may be, because they haven't had the chance. In this past election, Obama often ran to the right of Mitt Romney, his campaign frequently suggesting the latter would not have had the guts to kill Osama bin Laden. The DNC ridiculed Romney for suggesting he'd consider the war's legality before bombing Iran. “Romney Said He Would Talk To His Lawyers Before Deciding Whether To Use Military Force,” read the press release, as if that's a bad thing. Obama, bomber of a half-dozen countries, never forgot to mention the “crippling” sanctions he's imposed.

And J Street, the group that just co-sponsored a rally with AIPAC backing the Israeli state's latest killing spree? Ask a resident of Gaza how “pro-peace” it is.

But, in order to create a sign-this-petition! narrative, one often can't do nuance. So Naiman doesn't. In another post, this one highlighting Hagel's establishment support, because antiwar activists care about that sort of thing, he casually refers to former ambassador Ryan Crocker as among the “diplomacy champions and war skeptics” backing the former senator. This would be the same Ryan Crocker appointed by George W. Buish who has said “it's simply not the case that Afghans would rather have US forces gone,” and dismissed the killing of at least 25 people in Afghanistan, including children, as “not a very big deal.”

That should give you a good idea of the obfuscation going on in the antiwar campaign for a Pentagon chief. This is a problem. If you're going to play the role of the savvy Washington activist and get involved in the inside baseball that is fights over cabinet appointments, ostensibly to reframe the debate more than anything we must defeat AIPAC! you ought not go about reinforcing adherence to orthodoxy and the perceived value of establishment support and credentials. And you ought not cast as heroes of the peace movement people that really shouldn't be. That's actually really dangerous.

Yet, some would rather play down Hagel's pro-war credentials for the all-important narrative. So we cast him as a staunch opponent of a war with Iran, ignoring his repeated assertions that we must “keep all options on the table” with respect to the Islamic Republic, including killing men, women and children. In a piece he coauthored with other establishment foreign policy figures, Hagel's opposition to war amounted merely to a call to consider its costs – and its benefits.

For instance, “a U.S. attack would demonstrate the country’s credibility as an ally to other nations in the region and would derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for several years, providing space for other, potentially longer-term solutions,” the senator and his friends wrote. “An attack would also make clear the United States’ full commitment to nonproliferation as other nations contemplate moves in that direction.” Ah, but he mentioned there could be “costs” (though none of those he mentioned were “dead people”). Such is brave, antiwar opposition in Washington.

But that's the cynical game played in DC by some of the would-be movers-and-shakers on the outskirts of the policy conversation: cynically play down a politician's faults to please funders, other politicians and one's own sense of savvy self-satisfaction. It's how the antiwar movement ended up dissolving and largely getting behind a president who more than doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan. People were presented a rosy image of a candidate who was on their side and they concluded their work was done upon his election. The same thing threatens to be the case with Chuck Hagel. Indeed, as The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg notes, “who better to sell the president's militant Iran position than someone who comes from the realist camp?”

When I privately raised some of these concerns with Naiman, he got snooty quick, just as he did with other writers who questioned whether the quest to “defeat AIPAC” should be conducted by stressing why AIPAC should love the guy. To me, Naiman wrote that if I had concerns about the antiwar movement taking ownership of a defense secretary, “There are plenty of organizations that pursue an ultra-left, ideological purist line. Why don't you give them your support and be happy?”

We live in an an age where ideological purity is defined as being uncomfortable with an antiwar organization throwing unequivocal support behind a conservative Republican to head the Pentagon. It's an amazing world.

Rather than engage in the reactionary politics of supporting what one perceives to be the least-evil administrator of war, those on the antiwar left and right ought to be truth tellers. Let's not sugar coat this: The problem isn't just AIPAC and the neocons, but the Center for American Progress and the neoliberals. Dumbing down the reality only serves to bolster one faction of the war party. And it kills antiwar movements.


  1. Anonymous5:42 PM

    Mr. Davis,
    Speaking as a member of the sclerotic old white boy club I abhor the Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals, they are twins. I won't use the word evil because it's repugnant political theology. If anything Hegel represent the tiniest deviation of the norm of the Washington Consensus, of the moment. President Obama has no balls, he is Bobby Kennedy circa 1968, neither felt comfortable outside political respectability but very good at the rhetoric of ersatz progressivism.
    I'm reading Ulrich Beck's 20 Observations On A World In Turmoil. In that books he posits the notion of 'international domestic politics'i.e. cosmopolitanism. Not utopian speculation but as our denied but actual political condition. So for me, in my advanced state of personal hope or even delusion, the defeat of the Neo-Cons functions as a clearing away of pathological impediment to a realization of that hope and or delusion. You have argued your case very succinctly, but to drive a wedge in that Washington Consensus is the beginning of the possibility of a larger breach.Gradualism, yes. I fight for that small breach, not for Obama or Hegel but for republican values writ large.
    Best regards,

  2. snickeringdevil9:31 PM

    Sir SKMSD, and chahles,

    what if this is all besides the point.
    You seem to be anticipating that people are, at their core, worthy of some idealized dignity known as 'human'.
    What if they just keep busy and fear the other, period.
    So that even among those who, under ideal freedom, you presume would do good, in fact would always just demonize opponents in order to justify their own pathetic failings.
    That is, in a world where republicans were in fact less belligerent than democrats, the peace-democrats (so called) would in fact, rather than seize the wedge to create more peace on their own turf, where they had power, in fact just circled the wagons around a war mongering democrat party and decried the demon neocons as warmongers.

    Oh wait, we just had an election based on that. Lots of moments based on that. Who is a 'better' friend of Israel (that is, of the aggressive, conservative Israel, not "israel in general, a democratic state"), who is more aggressive in attacking countries.
    And a personal favorite of mine,
    the greatest tweet ever from a gay-lebuty lefty granola universal humanist:

    SandraBernhard that's right he rode into town and took him down #osamabinladin @barackobama did the job the GOP claimed they would #dnc2012 12:49 AM Sep 7th from web

    What a world indeed. Keep hoping for that 'wedge'.
    Btw, @SandraBernhard hasn't had a word to say about peace or politics since the west was won. I guess, once you vote right, the world is alright.

  3. snickeringdevil9:38 PM

    Jeez,I mean to write "gay-lebrity" but my brain broke down.
    That's not homophobic, in case any homophobes might quietly grin "yeah, stick it to Hollywood and their gay agends".

  4. snickeringdevil10:10 AM

    Jeez am I slow.

    You might also reduce everything to usVthem and consider that the real point is that the antiwar movement is no different from anyone else in the usVthem model.
    That quote, pared down just to

    "@barackobama did the job the GOP claimed they would #dnc2012"

    can be applied to anything these days. And guess who cheers.
    For some reason, the lefty international affairs/civil liberties crowd seems to forget this completely, and thinks the democrats stick to their side only because of the far more immediate-to-them domestic agenda. Which is a hypothesis that would be plausible if the facts were completely different.

  5. snickeringdevil10:16 AM

    Fact is, this was an election between obamney. And people voted for one clone, because they didn't like that santorum thinks porn is wrong.

    anti waht movement is being corrupted?

  6. snickeringdevil11:57 PM

    It's also possible that the decision was offered. And any candidate who wanted to win, knew they had to play the belligerent racist card. So, Obama MAY be ultimately less likely to go war on Iran. So might what'sisnameagain have been.

    But it was the voters who wouldn't choose a peace candidate. And the candidates gave them what they wanted.

  7. Anonymous12:18 AM

    I think we had it right when we called it what it is. "The War Department." I don't care who becomes Secretary of War, because I don't like war. Let the warmongers appoint their functionary.