Foreign Policy.com has an interesting take on Iraq and Hagel...

[YvonneCa]

...nomination. Given Senator Kerry's extensive involvement in Iraq policy, some here may find it interesting:

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/07/what_does_hagels_nomination_mean_the_fight_over_iraq_continues

[karynnj]

1. That is an interesting article

It actually makes sense in why the Republicans are so negative - more so than Israel. It is interesting that the media is crediting him with being the first Republican to criticize - when some like Chafee voted against it. Nor were Clinton and Biden EARLY critics of the war and Obama , though he spoke against going in, voted against the ideas of Kerry/Feingold which he then embraced in concept in his own plan 6 months later. I am pointing this out, not to be picky, but to point out that in an article on how Obama (and his team) want to write the history of what happened in Iraq, they are framing the Democratic/Obama position as benignly as possible.

Another "little" historical fib is that Hagel endorsed Obama in 2008. I was surprised to hear and read this so many times when I did not remember it. Googling, I found that he did not "publicly" endorse Obama, but his wife did.

[YvonneCa]

3. I think we in this group pay attention...

...more than some people to all of this.

I agree with everything you say here. I don't think it's picky at all to clarify the record. I, too, remember many details (since these details often were discussion topics here in DUJK ). I also understand the need for careful, benign framing here on the part of Democrats...

I just thought the article delineated the pro-Hagel vs anti-Hagel argument in an interesting way.

[karynnj]

5. I quite agree that this is a very good explanation of what is happening

The fact is that the Republicans have worked hard to make the CW that Iraq was a success. It is very interesting that this team will make it more likely that Obama can really change overall foreign policy.

My husband made the comment to me that it looks like with Biden, Kerry and Hagel as the core people supporting him on foreign policy, Obama will have his own team. He commented that the first term included may people like Gates, who was a Bush guy and Clinton, who was needed for American political reasons more than foreign policy. It is interesting to think that Senator Lugar likely influenced every one of these people.

[Mass]

2. Very incisive analysis of whom Hagel is, by Spencer Ackerman,

Ackerman posted that yesterday, but it is an honest analysis of where Hagel was and how he evolved. Given the somewhat excessive praises by people like Glen Greenward, I thought it was a good analysis.

This said, I get why Obama wants him, good luck to him.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/chuck-hagel-hawk/
Is Chuck Hagel a Hippie? Only if You Ignore His Record
,,,
As defense secretary, Hagel would be hugely influential in the ongoing debate over U.S. missile defenses, intervening in humanitarian emergencies and the scope of executive power in wartime. Hagel tends to emphasize the limits of American military power, something that even his critics at the Washington Post editorial board conceded was legitimate. But that doesn’t make him a dove.

[YvonneCa]

4. I get why he wants him...

...too. I think many VietNam vets learned (as Kerry has often said) that war should be a LAST resort, after all other efforts have been tried and have failed. We go to war, not because we WANT to, but because we HAVE to.

That didn't happen in Iraq. Both Hagel and Kerry know this, IMHO. I agree that doesn't make him(or JK) a dove. I also think, being a Republican, Hagel will be in a unique position to restructure defense economics...

[karynnj]

6. Another interesting story on the impact of Vietnam on Hagel

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/how-vietnam-affected-chuck-hagel/2013/01/07/c6ae3b94-58e2-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_blog.html