The Chuck Hagel Rant - Part the Second

I was prepared to work myself into a lather over further Republican intransigence on the Chuck Hagel nomination.  Our buddy and heroic Gulf War veteran Senator Lindsey Graham (who served his country sitting at a desk in South Carolina processing wills for soldiers who did deploy) says “Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream on most issues regarding foreign policy.”  That's fine, if by mainstream you mean current Tea Bag, Evangelical Christian, Neo-Con borderline insane foreign policy positions, then yeah, the man is way out of the mainstream.  But so, I hope, are most Americans after a decade of ill-advised war.  At least this Eisenhower Republican / Obama Democrat is.  I prefer a little - what's the word - oh yeah, realism in my foreign policy.

Anyhow, as I said, I was prepared to write a diatribe, when I happened to stumble on a speech Chuck Hagel gave at the University of Nebraska almost six years ago.  The man seems plenty real and plenty mainstream to me.  Some excerpts (the snotty parenthetical remarks are my own):    

"In the Middle East of the 21st Century, Iran will be a key center of gravity…a significant regional power. The United States cannot change that reality.  To acknowledge that reality in no way confuses Iran’s dangerous, destabilizing and threatening behavior in the region. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and provides material support to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups. Iran publicly threatens Israel and is developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Iran has not helped stabilize the current chaos in Iraq and is responsible for weapons and explosives being used against U.S. and Iraqi military forces in Iraq (yeah, the man sounds like a milquetoast, doesn't he?).

Our understanding of Iran is limited and incomplete. We have not had formal diplomatic relations with Iran for nearly three decades. Diplomatic contact at all levels is severely limited. We have no constructive military contact. Economic ties remain essentially severed as well. There is deep distrust and suspicion on both sides regarding intentions and motivations. Put simply, the United States and Iran do not know one another. This unfamiliarity, distrust, and lack of engagement risks producing disastrous consequences. When countries do not engage, the risk of misperception based on faulty judgments spawns uninformed and dangerous decisions.

The United States needs to weigh very carefully its actions regarding Iran. In a hazy, hair-triggered environment, careless rhetoric and military movements that one side may believe are required to demonstrate resolve and strength…can be misinterpreted as preparations for military options. The risk of inadvertent conflict because of miscalculation is great (Remember World War I, anybody?).  The United States must be cautious and wise not to follow the same destructive path on Iran as we did on Iraq. We blundered into Iraq because of flawed intelligence, flawed assumptions, flawed judgments, and questionable intentions (the man's a born diplomat, he didn't say 'out and out lies').  The United States must find a new regional diplomatic strategy to deal with Iran that integrates our regional allies, military power and economic leverage."

Sorry, Lindsay (and John McCain) but the man sounds eminently reasonable and - dare I say it - mainsteam to me.  And the man got two Purple Hearts - always a plus in my book.  That's as compared to Senator Graham, whose Gulf War wounds consisted of hemorrhoids from sitting at that desk all day long (yeah, I've got 'em too, Lindsay, and damn do they hurt - maybe not as much as a bullet, but ouch!  I feel your pain, fellow veteran).

Said my piece.  And now, back to the taxes.