You had to feel for Chuck Hagel the other day in his testimony before the 26-member Senate Armed Services Committee. He had some antagonists who combined the worst of partisan politics, ideological overkill and punk posturing.
Sen. John McCain, most notably, demanded an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer as to whether Hagel still thought the Iraq surge was a bad idea. Was he “right” or “wrong”? “Yes” or “No”? Hagel deferred to history as ultimately making the call. McCain obviously didn’t like the response–such that he re-asked the question several more times.
You could tell the exchange between the erstwhile Senate Republican colleagues and Vietnam veterans was personal. Nobody does disrespectful body language like McCain–especially to a prominent Republican who supported Barack Obama for president in 2008.
Given the rules of committee-hearing engagement, President Obama’s nominee couldn’t tell McCain what he really thought. Wouldn’t be prudent. Had he, he would have jeopardized other committee votes by not looking sufficiently cool under fire.
Had he responded in kind, however, he would not have lacked for material. Granted, it would have been an exchange more suitable for the Beltway Beef ‘N Beer. It likely might have gone something like this:
“OK, Senator, enough of the grandstanding. You’re now going to get the answer you deserve. In the historic context of war, we’re still looking at a snapshot. If Iraq, which is nobody’s idea of a stable government with disparate ethnic and religious elements living in harmony, ultimately devolves, what did we gain with the loss of American lives during the surge? For what it’s worth, I think we’ll still see a formal partitioning of Iraq into separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish sovereigns. I’d settle for the next Yugoslavia right now, but it won’t be that tidy.
“But let me go to the core of the issue, Senator. There’s a reason I’m up here–and you’re not. We both fought in Vietnam–one as an enlisted grunt on the ground, the other as a fighter pilot dropping bombs, some on civilians. I enlisted naively thinking I could help America in time of need. You went because that was what the son and grandson of admirals was expected to do–especially after almost washing out of Annapolis. No surprise, we ultimately saw the Vietnam war–and now all land wars–differently.
“Of course, we need to be militarily strong; the alternative is unacceptable. But we still need to see war as a last resort. And we cannot allow ourselves to become the Middle East’s policeman. Nor do we want to be an occupying force in an alien culture on the other side of the world, a misadventure that only makes us more enemies. Why do you think President George H.W. Bush and General Colin Powell didn’t want to take Baghdad in Desert Storm?
“They were on the side of reason then. I am on that side now. You still don’t get it. You still think boots on the ground is an early foreign-policy option. You still think Vietnam was a noble cause.
“So, the answer is a lamentably tragic ‘yes.’ I was right. And I still make that judgment. I can’t agree that surging in a war we should never have begun is the right course. Satisfied?
“And, by the way, John, that last beer is on me. Regards to Lindsey and the guys.”