Chuck Hagel: “There is no glory in war, there is only suffering ...”
January 7 President Barack Obama has pushed 66-year-old Chuck Hagel to the post of Secretary of Defense. It cannot be said that this nomination suits all senators. Even Hagel's party members, Republicans, including such celebrities as Graham and McCain, gave him serious dressing the other day. The latter, for example, was genuinely outraged that Hagel considered and considers the position of George W. Bush on Iraq is fundamentally wrong, and the military operation itself is a mistake. Also, many cannot forgive a candidate, a former sergeant who fought in Vietnam and twice wounded, that he does not approve of the activities of the "Jewish lobby" in the United States, advocates a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in Iran, and even admits the possibility of negotiations with Hezbollah. Hagel got to the point of talking about a world without nuclear weapons. And this is the future Minister of Defense? The "hawks" were outraged. Only one of the Republicans said he would vote for Chuck.
Charles Timothy "Chuck" Hagel was born October 4 1946 of the year in North Platte (Nebraska). In 1967-1968 he served in the US Army, participated in the war in Vietnam. Awarded with two Purple Hearts.
In 1971, Hagel graduated from the University of Nebraska. Then his career quickly went up the hill. From the same 1971 of the year to 1977 of the year, he already worked on Capitol Hill in the office of one Republican congressman. He spent the next four years of his life working in several lobbying companies in Washington.
In 1981, Charles Timothy was appointed deputy director of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. (This post is he leftby disagreeing with the views of the immediate superior on the problem of rendering assistance to military personnel affected by the use of the Agent Orange in Viet Nam).
In the middle of 1980's, he founded one of the first US cellular companies. Got rich, became a multimillionaire.
In 1997-2009 was the US senator from Nebraska. In the Senate, he was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Banking Committees, and at the end of 2008, he was considered one of the possible candidates for the position of US Secretary of State.
For the past few years, Hagel has worked at Georgetown University, while also co-chairing the presidential intelligence advisory group.
Last week, a weary, eight-hour discussion took place in the Senate Armed Services Committee about whether Chuck Hagel could be appointed to the post of defense minister.
Representatives of the “Great Old Party” expressed concernthat he will be too soft a minister. They did not like his calls to cut spending on Pentagon programs and talk about a world without nuclear weapons. A separate issue was his unwillingness to solve the Iranian nuclear problem by military means. Hagel had to clarify:
That is, he does not want to fight with Iran, but he will submit to the president if he orders.
As for the operation in Iraq, which Hagel had previously criticized, John McCain spoke sharply. He did not hesitate to say that the members of the committee were embarrassed by the political views of the candidate and they are not sure that Hagel will be able to professionally and objectively judge the environment. Next, McCain spoke of Hagel's position on Iraq.
The Israeli issue was also raised at the hearing. While working in the Senate in 1997-2009, Chuck is often performed criticized Israeli policies and refused to support the initiatives of pro-Israel American public organizations. Once he even disapprovingly spoke of the powerful “Jewish lobby” in the United States, saying that he himself was “not an Israeli senator, but an American senator.” Then he was labeled an anti-Semite.
It should also be noted that Senator Hagel condemned attempts to push the United States and Israel into war with Iran. In his bold judgments, he went so far as to allow the possibility of negotiations with Hezbollah. All of this logically fit into the mainstream of solving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.
It is necessary to point out that Chuck Hagel promised to fulfill the Russian-American agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive arms (START-3). is he сказал to the senators:
However he saidThat the United States will continue to develop and deploy its missile defense systems around the world:
Ex-senator stressed that the missile defense system is directed exclusively against Iran and the DPRK. It was then that he proceeded to identify the main external enemies of the United States. Russia was not on their list. Main threat in his opinion, now represent Iran, the DPRK and Pakistan:
He expressed his position: when solving problems, the United States should consult with the international community and not rush to use military force. Military force is an extreme measure, and it follows only diplomacy and sanctions that have not yielded results.
As for Iran’s nuclear problem, it should be resolved with the help of international sanctions. And they should be coordinated with Russia and the UN Security Council.
Hagel confirmed that the US defense department plans to continue the implementation of existing disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, while continuing the course set by the Obama administration in previous years. Speaking in the Senate, Hagel said that the United States should remain the strongest military power in the world and provide assistance to the rest of the world community.
After mentioning the help, he turned to the Afghan issue. The role and number of US troops in Afghanistan should be precisely defined. The main priority is the withdrawal of troops from this country:
The candidate for the Minister of Defense and the "slippery" topic touched. He assured the senators that the new leadership of the Pentagon is not going to restore restrictions on the service of homosexuals in the armed forces:
Thus, Hagel "justified" before the senators. We are talking about his old statements (1998) concerning the sexual orientation of the applicant for the post of ambassador to Luxembourg, chosen by Bill Clinton.
Hagel also touched upon such a modern strategic trend as cyber warfare. According to him, the fight against cyber threat will remain the main priority for the Pentagon in the future:
As a result of the hearings, the picture was the following: of the Republicans from 45, only one senator said that he would vote for Hagel. However, this is unlikely to change anything. The fact is that the majority in the Senate belongs to the Democrats (their 55), and they are almost all ready to vote for Hagel. The alignment is a bit strange - the Republicans will be against the Republican, the Democrats will be for the Republican, but as it happened. In the blog Washington Post they have no doubt that Chuck will win through the majority of Democrats votes and will soon become the head of the Pentagon. Chris Chiliz writes that Republican senators could, of course, choose the hearing as a platform for provoking clashes with the president, but given their previous decision to retreat before the “fiscal cliff” and also to temporarily cancel the national debt ceiling, such tactical activity seems unlikely.
Jeffrey Goldberg, columnist Bloombergreminds readers. that in 2008, Hagel’s book America: Our Next Chapter was published. In it, the author wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “cannot be viewed in isolation. The stone fell into a calm lake, and the ripples go on and on and on. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will feel this effect stronger than others. Further afield, Afghanistan and Pakistan; Everything that affects their political stability will have an impact on the two new economic superpowers - India and China. ”
Goldberg says he would like to hear Hagel's opinion on this topic today. After all, Hagel’s hypothesis, built on the idea that the Middle East, freed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would become a “calm lake” was completely discredited by reality.
Yes, the analyst writes, of course, it is important to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it is true that some Islamist terrorist groups use conflict as a tool. But these same terrorists invariably move away from a compromise that would allow the two states, Israel and Palestine, to coexist peacefully, live side by side: the terrorists are against the very existence of Israel. They are trying to undermine the peace process, because they fear that it will legitimize the existence of a country they hate.
Hence, Hagel's hypotheses about the connection of the conflict between Israel and Palestine with instability throughout the Middle East seem to the observer to be false. Goldberg notes that civil wars here are completely unrelated to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Syrian civil war? - he asks a question to himself. No, they are not related to a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement. Slow the collapse of Yemen? No connection too. Chaos and violence in Libya? And it is not related. Chaos and fundamentalism in Egypt? But the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank would not stop the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak or the gain of the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism in Algeria? And this is out of touch. Iranian nuclear program? And what, the creation of a Palestinian state would convince the world that the Iranian regime stopped its pursuit of nuclear weapons? Sunni and Shiite civil war in Iraq? Riots in Bahrain? Pakistani al-Qaida shelters? Where is the connection?
Why is it important? - Asks the analyst. “Because our leaders must be realistic, unlike the“ realist ”in quotes. We need to understand the root causes of the unrest in the Middle East. How can realists in quotes protect us from threats, the author asks if they do not understand the reasons for these threats? Decades of dictatorship (in many cases with the tacit consent of the US government) have done from the Middle East what it is today: here and misogyny, and low education, and corruption, and the politicization of Islam, and religious hatred.
Hagel wants to lead the US Department of Defense. Goldberg would like to know if he still believes in his “connection” hypothesis. A more important reviewer is the question of whether Obama is in captivity of this erroneous concept ...
Justin Green ("The Daily Beast"), quoting the material Goldberg, discusses the same topic. She sincerely hopes that the day will come when lasting peace will be established on the holy land. The existence of two states, the journalist notes, is morally and materially preferable to their alternatives, and the prospect of a future without two states is the most depressing.
Green does not accuse Israel of being disinterested in the world. She recalls that Hamas is “openly virulent” in relation to the state of Israel, while Fatah leaders mutter something in English about recognizing Israel, but at the same time pushing incendiary speeches in Arabic. On the part of the international community, we are witnessing "blatant condescension." So why would a pragmatic Israel engage in promoting the peace process? - the journalist asks. - To appease those who seek to destroy him?
Hagel, in her opinion, deliberately retains a point of view on the existing "connection". His hypothesis about a stone thrown into a “calm lake” reflects his silence that significant changes have taken place in recent decades. Is the resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine suddenly causing peace in the entire conflict region? And this is what we want from our Minister of Defense?
The journalist has no doubt that Hagel is an expert in international affairs. She does not even doubt that he is a man who truly thinks that the "constant pain" of the Middle East can be resolved by solving a long-standing conflict. But his thoughts on this issue, she says, are naive and divorced from reality.
Hagel is a good person and deservedly respected public servant. But he is mistaken about Israel, writes Green. And it can not be ignored.
Amy Davidson (Military Journalist, «The New Yorker») writes about Hagel quite differently.
She believes that Hagel did not stay very well in the Senate because of intellectual dishonesty in the hall, insinuations and the general tension of the situation. With the exception of extremely precise defense-related questions, everything else was a little like trying to get real information about what Hagel would do as minister in a particular case. Especially the candidate tortured Israeli issue.
For example, Lindsey Graham stated that the refusal of Hagel in 2000 to sign a letter approved by the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American-Israeli Public Relations Committee) and supporting Israel and condemning the Palestinians, “chills chills on the back.”
And Ted Cruz, the new Texas senator, asked:
However, David Weigel pointed out that such a question distorts the facts: Hagel spoke at the time of the middle of the war in Lebanon, that
And in the same speech, he said that the United States would remain committed to the defense of Israel.
(And Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from the state of Utah, writes Chris McGrill (The Guardian), put pressure on Hagel with a question: will he now support his own statement that the Israelis “keep the Palestinians in a cage like animals”? Hagel replied in the negative: “If I had the ability to edit ... I would like to go back and change the words and the meaning”).
Hagel, recalls Amy Davidson, could have served in 1967 at a comfortable base in Germany, but he preferred Vietnam. He himself says: “... I have never been to Germany. My great-grandfathers from Germany. Probably a pretty good place, I thought, but I have to go where the war is going. ” Here the journalist sees the young man’s desire to do what he considered a matter of honor, and did it boldly. How he got to Vietnam was asked by a Democratic senator.
It turned out that he began service in the infantry in 1967 year. “And I just decided that if I was going to be in the army, it makes no sense to go to Germany,” said Hagel. Therefore, he asked to be sent to Vietnam. Further - more interesting.
Earlier, in an interview that Chuck Hagel gave at the Library of Congress in 2002, he said:
It should be noted that many American analysts expected the support of Hagel by Senator McCain, who also served in Vietnam. However, McCain, as mentioned above, turned out to be one of the most ardent debaters, who did not accept the candidacy of a former sergeant infantryman.
What can Russia expect from Hagel? It is unlikely that in the coming months there will be any changes in the relationship. The President of the United States will not arrive in Russia earlier than the September G20 summit in St. Petersburg - and the postponement of his visit is probably connected with the “lack of agreements in the field of arms control.” If Chuck Hagel’s candidacy is approved, the United States, as Hagel himself said, will continue deploying missile defense systems around the world. The military threat, according to the candidate for defense ministers, comes from Iran, the DPRK and Pakistan. Not bad that the Republican, like Mitt Romney, did not name Russia as an enemy.
As for Mr. Hagel’s anti-war rhetoric, it is rather convincing, since it has suffered from its own skin. True, the Republican's pacifism is not to the liking of the aggressive “hawk” McCain, who is unlikely to vote for Chuck. However, how far the one who has been appointed the head of the Pentagon can go in his objections to the war is a big question.
In the near future, if the candidacy is approved by the senators, it will become clear how Israeli politicians will react to the decision of the senate. In the light of strained relations due to the air raid by the Israeli air force on the suburbs of Damascus, this is very important. Israel and the United States are allies, but Netanyahu’s cool in relation to Obama may turn into Arctic ice when Charles Timothy comes alongside Barack Hussein, who has an original understanding of what is happening in the Middle East.
Charles Timothy "Chuck" Hagel was born October 4 1946 of the year in North Platte (Nebraska). In 1967-1968 he served in the US Army, participated in the war in Vietnam. Awarded with two Purple Hearts.
In 1971, Hagel graduated from the University of Nebraska. Then his career quickly went up the hill. From the same 1971 of the year to 1977 of the year, he already worked on Capitol Hill in the office of one Republican congressman. He spent the next four years of his life working in several lobbying companies in Washington.
In 1981, Charles Timothy was appointed deputy director of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. (This post is he leftby disagreeing with the views of the immediate superior on the problem of rendering assistance to military personnel affected by the use of the Agent Orange in Viet Nam).
In the middle of 1980's, he founded one of the first US cellular companies. Got rich, became a multimillionaire.
In 1997-2009 was the US senator from Nebraska. In the Senate, he was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Banking Committees, and at the end of 2008, he was considered one of the possible candidates for the position of US Secretary of State.
For the past few years, Hagel has worked at Georgetown University, while also co-chairing the presidential intelligence advisory group.
Last week, a weary, eight-hour discussion took place in the Senate Armed Services Committee about whether Chuck Hagel could be appointed to the post of defense minister.
Representatives of the “Great Old Party” expressed concernthat he will be too soft a minister. They did not like his calls to cut spending on Pentagon programs and talk about a world without nuclear weapons. A separate issue was his unwillingness to solve the Iranian nuclear problem by military means. Hagel had to clarify:
“Like the president, I am sure that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. You can act here in different ways. My position was that we should not conduct work to contain Iran, but to play for the advance. As Minister of Defense, I, of course, will prepare the ministry for any development of events. This is my job and my responsibility. ”
That is, he does not want to fight with Iran, but he will submit to the president if he orders.
As for the operation in Iraq, which Hagel had previously criticized, John McCain spoke sharply. He did not hesitate to say that the members of the committee were embarrassed by the political views of the candidate and they are not sure that Hagel will be able to professionally and objectively judge the environment. Next, McCain spoke of Hagel's position on Iraq.
Hagel: Then the operation seemed necessary, but then ...
McCain: Answer, please, directly. Were you right or not when you called the Iraqi operation the worst example of foreign policy since Vietnam? Were you right or not? Yes or no?
Hagel: My attitude to the operation was ...
McCain: Answer the question, Senator Hagel! Were you right? Answer - and you will be free.
Hagel: Then I will not answer - “yes” or “no.”
McCain: So we write: "Refuses to answer." Let's continue ...
McCain: Answer, please, directly. Were you right or not when you called the Iraqi operation the worst example of foreign policy since Vietnam? Were you right or not? Yes or no?
Hagel: My attitude to the operation was ...
McCain: Answer the question, Senator Hagel! Were you right? Answer - and you will be free.
Hagel: Then I will not answer - “yes” or “no.”
McCain: So we write: "Refuses to answer." Let's continue ...
The Israeli issue was also raised at the hearing. While working in the Senate in 1997-2009, Chuck is often performed criticized Israeli policies and refused to support the initiatives of pro-Israel American public organizations. Once he even disapprovingly spoke of the powerful “Jewish lobby” in the United States, saying that he himself was “not an Israeli senator, but an American senator.” Then he was labeled an anti-Semite.
It should also be noted that Senator Hagel condemned attempts to push the United States and Israel into war with Iran. In his bold judgments, he went so far as to allow the possibility of negotiations with Hezbollah. All of this logically fit into the mainstream of solving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.
It is necessary to point out that Chuck Hagel promised to fulfill the Russian-American agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive arms (START-3). is he сказал to the senators:
“I intend to continue implementing the START-3 agreement and follow the disarmament agreements. I intend to maintain our strategic forces in full readiness and at the proper level. ”
However he saidThat the United States will continue to develop and deploy its missile defense systems around the world:
"The United States intends to continue the development and deployment abroad of elements of the missile defense system ... The United States cannot agree to limit its missile defense or publicize information about it that could put our systems at risk."
Ex-senator stressed that the missile defense system is directed exclusively against Iran and the DPRK. It was then that he proceeded to identify the main external enemies of the United States. Russia was not on their list. Main threat in his opinion, now represent Iran, the DPRK and Pakistan:
“Iran’s problem is serious. I agree with the position of Barack Obama that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. The danger is also the DPRK with its missile and nuclear programs. Pakistan is another challenge. ”
He expressed his position: when solving problems, the United States should consult with the international community and not rush to use military force. Military force is an extreme measure, and it follows only diplomacy and sanctions that have not yielded results.
As for Iran’s nuclear problem, it should be resolved with the help of international sanctions. And they should be coordinated with Russia and the UN Security Council.
Hagel confirmed that the US defense department plans to continue the implementation of existing disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, while continuing the course set by the Obama administration in previous years. Speaking in the Senate, Hagel said that the United States should remain the strongest military power in the world and provide assistance to the rest of the world community.
After mentioning the help, he turned to the Afghan issue. The role and number of US troops in Afghanistan should be precisely defined. The main priority is the withdrawal of troops from this country:
“The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in the designated time frame (until the end of 2014 year) is a top priority. I confirm that the position of Barack Obama that the United States should focus only on training Afghan forces and counter-terrorism in Afghanistan will be implemented. ”
The candidate for the Minister of Defense and the "slippery" topic touched. He assured the senators that the new leadership of the Pentagon is not going to restore restrictions on the service of homosexuals in the armed forces:
“I intend to continue the implementation of the law, which put an end to the practice called“ Don't Ask Don't Tell. ” In full its (law) volume.
Thus, Hagel "justified" before the senators. We are talking about his old statements (1998) concerning the sexual orientation of the applicant for the post of ambassador to Luxembourg, chosen by Bill Clinton.
Hagel also touched upon such a modern strategic trend as cyber warfare. According to him, the fight against cyber threat will remain the main priority for the Pentagon in the future:
“Cyber attacks remain the most dangerous and complex threat of the United States. They can damage not only the defense of the country, but also the actions of law enforcement agencies, companies, people. This is a threat to national security, and we will continue to fight it. ”
As a result of the hearings, the picture was the following: of the Republicans from 45, only one senator said that he would vote for Hagel. However, this is unlikely to change anything. The fact is that the majority in the Senate belongs to the Democrats (their 55), and they are almost all ready to vote for Hagel. The alignment is a bit strange - the Republicans will be against the Republican, the Democrats will be for the Republican, but as it happened. In the blog Washington Post they have no doubt that Chuck will win through the majority of Democrats votes and will soon become the head of the Pentagon. Chris Chiliz writes that Republican senators could, of course, choose the hearing as a platform for provoking clashes with the president, but given their previous decision to retreat before the “fiscal cliff” and also to temporarily cancel the national debt ceiling, such tactical activity seems unlikely.
Jeffrey Goldberg, columnist Bloombergreminds readers. that in 2008, Hagel’s book America: Our Next Chapter was published. In it, the author wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “cannot be viewed in isolation. The stone fell into a calm lake, and the ripples go on and on and on. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon will feel this effect stronger than others. Further afield, Afghanistan and Pakistan; Everything that affects their political stability will have an impact on the two new economic superpowers - India and China. ”
Goldberg says he would like to hear Hagel's opinion on this topic today. After all, Hagel’s hypothesis, built on the idea that the Middle East, freed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would become a “calm lake” was completely discredited by reality.
Yes, the analyst writes, of course, it is important to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it is true that some Islamist terrorist groups use conflict as a tool. But these same terrorists invariably move away from a compromise that would allow the two states, Israel and Palestine, to coexist peacefully, live side by side: the terrorists are against the very existence of Israel. They are trying to undermine the peace process, because they fear that it will legitimize the existence of a country they hate.
Hence, Hagel's hypotheses about the connection of the conflict between Israel and Palestine with instability throughout the Middle East seem to the observer to be false. Goldberg notes that civil wars here are completely unrelated to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Syrian civil war? - he asks a question to himself. No, they are not related to a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement. Slow the collapse of Yemen? No connection too. Chaos and violence in Libya? And it is not related. Chaos and fundamentalism in Egypt? But the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank would not stop the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak or the gain of the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism in Algeria? And this is out of touch. Iranian nuclear program? And what, the creation of a Palestinian state would convince the world that the Iranian regime stopped its pursuit of nuclear weapons? Sunni and Shiite civil war in Iraq? Riots in Bahrain? Pakistani al-Qaida shelters? Where is the connection?
Why is it important? - Asks the analyst. “Because our leaders must be realistic, unlike the“ realist ”in quotes. We need to understand the root causes of the unrest in the Middle East. How can realists in quotes protect us from threats, the author asks if they do not understand the reasons for these threats? Decades of dictatorship (in many cases with the tacit consent of the US government) have done from the Middle East what it is today: here and misogyny, and low education, and corruption, and the politicization of Islam, and religious hatred.
Hagel wants to lead the US Department of Defense. Goldberg would like to know if he still believes in his “connection” hypothesis. A more important reviewer is the question of whether Obama is in captivity of this erroneous concept ...
Justin Green ("The Daily Beast"), quoting the material Goldberg, discusses the same topic. She sincerely hopes that the day will come when lasting peace will be established on the holy land. The existence of two states, the journalist notes, is morally and materially preferable to their alternatives, and the prospect of a future without two states is the most depressing.
Green does not accuse Israel of being disinterested in the world. She recalls that Hamas is “openly virulent” in relation to the state of Israel, while Fatah leaders mutter something in English about recognizing Israel, but at the same time pushing incendiary speeches in Arabic. On the part of the international community, we are witnessing "blatant condescension." So why would a pragmatic Israel engage in promoting the peace process? - the journalist asks. - To appease those who seek to destroy him?
Hagel, in her opinion, deliberately retains a point of view on the existing "connection". His hypothesis about a stone thrown into a “calm lake” reflects his silence that significant changes have taken place in recent decades. Is the resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestine suddenly causing peace in the entire conflict region? And this is what we want from our Minister of Defense?
The journalist has no doubt that Hagel is an expert in international affairs. She does not even doubt that he is a man who truly thinks that the "constant pain" of the Middle East can be resolved by solving a long-standing conflict. But his thoughts on this issue, she says, are naive and divorced from reality.
Hagel is a good person and deservedly respected public servant. But he is mistaken about Israel, writes Green. And it can not be ignored.
Amy Davidson (Military Journalist, «The New Yorker») writes about Hagel quite differently.
She believes that Hagel did not stay very well in the Senate because of intellectual dishonesty in the hall, insinuations and the general tension of the situation. With the exception of extremely precise defense-related questions, everything else was a little like trying to get real information about what Hagel would do as minister in a particular case. Especially the candidate tortured Israeli issue.
For example, Lindsey Graham stated that the refusal of Hagel in 2000 to sign a letter approved by the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American-Israeli Public Relations Committee) and supporting Israel and condemning the Palestinians, “chills chills on the back.”
And Ted Cruz, the new Texas senator, asked:
“Do you think it is right that Israel committed, I quote,“ nauseous slaughter, ”as you put it, on the floor of the Senate?”
However, David Weigel pointed out that such a question distorts the facts: Hagel spoke at the time of the middle of the war in Lebanon, that
“The nauseous slaughter on both sides must end, and it must end now. President Bush should call for an immediate ceasefire. This madness must end. ”
And in the same speech, he said that the United States would remain committed to the defense of Israel.
(And Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from the state of Utah, writes Chris McGrill (The Guardian), put pressure on Hagel with a question: will he now support his own statement that the Israelis “keep the Palestinians in a cage like animals”? Hagel replied in the negative: “If I had the ability to edit ... I would like to go back and change the words and the meaning”).
Hagel, recalls Amy Davidson, could have served in 1967 at a comfortable base in Germany, but he preferred Vietnam. He himself says: “... I have never been to Germany. My great-grandfathers from Germany. Probably a pretty good place, I thought, but I have to go where the war is going. ” Here the journalist sees the young man’s desire to do what he considered a matter of honor, and did it boldly. How he got to Vietnam was asked by a Democratic senator.
It turned out that he began service in the infantry in 1967 year. “And I just decided that if I was going to be in the army, it makes no sense to go to Germany,” said Hagel. Therefore, he asked to be sent to Vietnam. Further - more interesting.
“The office has become quiet. They put me in a separate room. They called a priest, a rabbi, officials, a psychiatrist. Everyone came to look at me, thinking that I was wrong, ran away from something or killed someone. I was checked for two days, wanting to make sure that I was fine. Then they forced me to wash the barracks for five days ... ”
Earlier, in an interview that Chuck Hagel gave at the Library of Congress in 2002, he said:
“I was wounded by shrapnel; my face was burned from above and below. Both eardrums ... burst. And until we could provide security in the area, our wounded could not be taken away by helicopter ...
I remember (in anticipation of doctors and evacuation) that I thought ... if I ever get out of all this, I will do everything in my power to ensure that war will be the last resort in the dispute that we, the people, will call on other people to resolve the conflict ...
Horror, pain, suffering of war, people just do not understand if they have not gone through it. There is no glory in war, there is only suffering ... ”
I remember (in anticipation of doctors and evacuation) that I thought ... if I ever get out of all this, I will do everything in my power to ensure that war will be the last resort in the dispute that we, the people, will call on other people to resolve the conflict ...
Horror, pain, suffering of war, people just do not understand if they have not gone through it. There is no glory in war, there is only suffering ... ”
It should be noted that many American analysts expected the support of Hagel by Senator McCain, who also served in Vietnam. However, McCain, as mentioned above, turned out to be one of the most ardent debaters, who did not accept the candidacy of a former sergeant infantryman.
What can Russia expect from Hagel? It is unlikely that in the coming months there will be any changes in the relationship. The President of the United States will not arrive in Russia earlier than the September G20 summit in St. Petersburg - and the postponement of his visit is probably connected with the “lack of agreements in the field of arms control.” If Chuck Hagel’s candidacy is approved, the United States, as Hagel himself said, will continue deploying missile defense systems around the world. The military threat, according to the candidate for defense ministers, comes from Iran, the DPRK and Pakistan. Not bad that the Republican, like Mitt Romney, did not name Russia as an enemy.
As for Mr. Hagel’s anti-war rhetoric, it is rather convincing, since it has suffered from its own skin. True, the Republican's pacifism is not to the liking of the aggressive “hawk” McCain, who is unlikely to vote for Chuck. However, how far the one who has been appointed the head of the Pentagon can go in his objections to the war is a big question.
In the near future, if the candidacy is approved by the senators, it will become clear how Israeli politicians will react to the decision of the senate. In the light of strained relations due to the air raid by the Israeli air force on the suburbs of Damascus, this is very important. Israel and the United States are allies, but Netanyahu’s cool in relation to Obama may turn into Arctic ice when Charles Timothy comes alongside Barack Hussein, who has an original understanding of what is happening in the Middle East.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information