Floor Statements
|
|
|
Print this page |
FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON THE HAGEL NOMINATION
February 14, 2013
“I rise to speak on the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense.
"For all the years that I have known him, I have known Senator Hagel to be an honorable man and a patriot. Within this chamber, elsewhere in government and overseas on the field of battle, Senator Hagel has served his country faithfully and with distinction.
“Although we have our differences, Senator Hagel was, and remains, my friend. And, there was a time when Senator Hagel and I saw the world and America's role in it in much the same way. When the Balkans were torn apart with mass atrocities and genocide, Senator Hagel and I stood together with Senators Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman to lend bipartisan support to President Clinton in taking more forceful action to end the slaughter. Here is what Senator Hagel said in May 1999 on this very Floor during the debate over whether the United States should intervene militarily in Kosovo, quote:
“‘But we also understand there are things worth going to war for, and there are things worth dying for.…When people are being slaughtered at a rather considerable rate, and genocide is occurring, and ethnic cleansing is occurring, and people are being driven from their homes and their countries at an unprecedented rate, and the other side that we're trying to deal with continues to lie and cheat and kill – then we must face reality. What do we do now? The geopolitical consequences, the humanitarian consequences involved in this are great. They are deep. And they are serious….Do we really believe that the greatest, most noble, most free nation on earth can stand aside and watch this butchering and act like it's not there?’
“Senator Hagel continued:
“‘History has surely taught us that when you defer the tough decisions, when you let the butchers continue and the tyrants and dictators continue, it gets worse. And it has gotten worse with Milosevic. For ten years we've dealt with him. Four wars he's started. He's lied and cheated and slaughtered all through those ten years. Don't we have some responsibility to deal with this, as imperfect as all the options are?’
“I wholeheartedly agreed with that statement at the time. And I still do. And I think it applies with equal or greater force to Syria today. But, I'm not sure Senator Hagel believes that anymore.
“When America was attacked on September 11, 2001, Senator Hagel and I urged a strong American response to vanquish the enemies who attacked us, beginning in Afghanistan. Two years later, President Bush decided that the United States may have to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq to help enforce the legitimate demands of the international community that he give up the weapons of mass destruction programs that we and everyone believed he had. Both Senator Hagel and I voted to authorize that use of force in Iraq.
“Again, Senator Hagel and I were often together in our criticism of the Bush Administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. We both were disturbed by the apparent arrogance of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his abject failure to respond to the clear fact that we were losing the war on the ground.
“In August 2003, I urged President Bush to send more troops, to change our strategy, and to replace military and civilian leaders who were failing in their responsibilities. Senator Hagel, on the other hand, eventually felt we should cut our losses and withdraw from Iraq.
“Since that time, Senator Hagel has taken policy positions that I believe call into question the quality of his professional judgment on issues critical to national defense. I’m also concerned that Senator Hagel is ill-suited to lead the two-and-a-half million uniformed members of our Armed Services and ensure the sound management of an agency that has an annual budget equal to the 17th largest economy in the world.
“Of all the responsibilities of government, none is more fundamental than providing for the nation’s defense. We must have the most qualified and able person for the position and, having carefully reviewed Senator Hagel’s long public record, I find his nomination wanting. Senator Hagel’s appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago failed to allay my concerns about his nomination. During the hearing, he repeatedly refused to give an assessment of his previous statements on issues like the troop surge in Iraq; the identification and engagement of terrorist organizations; and his past rhetoric about our allies. In response to these questions, he either assigned history the task of judging the merit of his past statements and positions or simply said, ‘If I had an opportunity to edit that, like many things I've said, I would – I would like to go back and change the words and the meaning.’
“Mr. President, history isn’t likely to affirm Senator Hagel’s declaration that the decision to increase forces in order to wage a counterinsurgency in Iraq – a decision that helped prevent our losing that war – was the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. It is quite obvious now that the statement was histrionic, woefully uninformed and absurd. But, I didn’t raise it at Senator Hagel’s hearing for the satisfaction of an I-told-you-so moment, but to determine if Secretary Hagel recognizes he was in error, and more importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today. I wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes.
“Unfortunately, I’m not confident that he has. And after two weeks of reviewing his record, my concerns about whether Senator Hagel is ready to serve as Secretary of Defense have not diminished.
“Nothing in Senator Hagel’s background indicates that he would effectively manage the Department of Defense. In today’s unprecedented environment of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the Department of Defense do not adversely impact military readiness is enormously challenging. It requires that the Secretary have, as Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta had, a proven track record of successfully managing large and complex organizations. Senator Hagel has no such experience.
“As I stated a few days ago here on the Floor, the chronic ‘culture of inefficiency’ at the Department is eating-away at the Department’s buying-power in all of its key investment areas – procurement, research and development, sustainment and personnel. Addressing this hugely important issue requires leadership at the top that is not merely mindful of ‘business-as-usual’ but also absolutely committed to challenging it and driving much-needed cultural change throughout the Department. On the current record, I have no sense that Senator Hagel would be that kind of leader.
“Throughout the confirmation process, Senator Hagel said precious little about how the Department of Defense could operate more efficiently and effectively. My sense is that Senator Hagel views the Department not as inefficient but as inherently too big. That’s an important difference. It, once again, reflects his broader view of the world and America’s place in it – a view unsupportive of America’s role as an indispensible and credible deterrent to the world’s most dangerous threats.
“There are those of us who seek to cut waste, fraud and abuse from the Department of Defense. Senator Hagel seeks something else entirely – to cut military capabilities that serve as tools to ensure our continued engagement throughout the world in support of America’s interests and those of our allies.
“At least in the eyes of the President, Senator Hagel is, however, apparently the right man to oversee the continuing drawdown of the Armed Services. Over the past four years, the Obama Administration has pursued a program of defense reductions that exceed those expected of a normal post-war drawdown – cuts that have begun to directly undermine U.S. global military power. The looming sequester reductions will inflict further damage to the Department, both by their magnitude and method. Last week, Secretary Panetta testified before the Armed Services Committee that he could not believe that ‘people would stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national defense by letting [sequestration] take place.’
“Even now, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have begun implementing steep cuts to manpower, training, and maintenance, and are planning furloughs and additional reductions in the event that sequester is triggered. I have seen no evidence that Senator Hagel would fight to protect the Department of Defense from sequester or, for that matter, effectively articulate to Congress or the White House the need for a robust national defense program.
“I fear that he will acquiesce to a defense strategy driven by White House budget analysts, rather than by a clear-eyed assessment from uniformed leaders of global threats. During his confirmation, Senator Hagel asserted that he would ‘use the full force of the United States military’ in defense of the nation. But, if the Armed Services are allowed to atrophy through repeated budget reductions and sequestration, ‘the full force of the United States military’ may not be enough to defend our allies and interests.
“My doubts about Senator Hagel’s suitability for Secretary of Defense extend beyond his prospective management of defense budgetary resources. The North Koreans recently tested another nuclear weapon. Iraq is unraveling. The Iranians just rejected Vice President Biden’s proposal at the Munich Security Conference for one-on-one talks concerning nuclear weapons. Libya, Mali, Tunisia, and Egypt are in varying states of unrest, for which we have no strategy. We are in the most unsettled period since the end of the Cold War, and I have serious concerns as to the quality of Senator Hagel’s professional judgment and the acuity of his views on critical areas of national security, including security in the East Asia and the Middle East.
“His record on Iraq is particularly troubling. As I alluded to a moment ago, in 2002, Senator Hagel voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. But, by 2006, his support for the war had diminished. After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, Senator Hagel wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post under the title ‘Leaving Iraq, Honorably,’ foreshadowing his opposition to the surge and advocating ‘a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq.’ When President Bush announced his decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, Senator Hagel actively campaigned against it.
“He voted in February 2007 in favor of a bill expressing opposition to the surge; and, later, in favor of measures to set a date-certain withdrawal of troops from Iraq – an equally bad policy.
“Senator Hagel wrote in his 2008 memoir America: Our Next Chapter that ‘history...will show’ that his legislative efforts to oppose the surge correctly framed the political matters at issue at the time. Carl Levin, on the other hand, said in 2009, ‘in considering whether or not to surge troops in Iraq...I think that history will show that President Bush reached the right decision.’ Senator Hagel also wrote in his book that ‘more troops’ was not the answer to problems in Iraq. He contradicted himself later in the same book where he complained that not enough troops were committed to the war ‘to prevail,’ which was precisely what the surge remedied.
“Senator Hagel then advocated the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2011, rather than negotiating an agreement for an enduring presence of U.S. forces. The President ultimately did exactly what Senator Hagel recommended – reportedly against the advice of military leaders. In response to written questions on this matter, Senator Hagel again stated that the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was the right call, and asserted that ‘Iraq is in a better place today because of it.’
“In fact, since the withdrawal of all our forces in 2011, the fragile political accommodation made possible by the troop surge of 2007 – which ended large-scale sectarian violence in Iraq – has unraveled over the past year. Al Qaeda in Iraq is remobilizing. Iranian-backed Shiite militias are gaining strength. Meanwhile, the country is on the brink of civil war as protests against the Maliki government draw thousands and conflicts between Arabs and Kurds become increasingly militarized.
“Nonetheless, Senator Hagel is equally quick to advocate full withdrawal from Afghanistan, despite conditions on the ground or the advice of military commanders. We face strategic choices regarding the size and structure of U.S., allied, and partner forces in Afghanistan in 2014 and afterward. In May 2011, after Osama bin Laden was killed, Senator Hagel advocated for the U.S. to ‘start heading toward the exits’ in Afghanistan. That does not sound to me like either an ‘honorable’ or ‘responsible’ departure – words he used when advocating for an exit to Iraq. In fact, a repeat of the precipitous withdrawal witnessed in Iraq would permit a resurgent Taliban empathetic to al Qaeda’s ambitions. The subsequent security deterioration would squander the investment in blood and treasure we have made over the last decade.
“Senator Hagel’s views on Iran are also profoundly troubling. Consider, for instance, his recent set of incorrect and confused responses to basic questions about President Obama’s Iran policy during his confirmation hearing last month, which one senior White House official rightfully described as ‘somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible.’
“I am, however, more deeply concerned by Senator Hagel’s overall record on this issue. In his 2008 book, he decried the use of military force on Iran and suggested being softer on the Iranian regime while recognizing that ‘an Iranian nuclear breakout would have dangerous consequences in a region characterized by unresolved and longstanding conflicts.…’ Can we expect Senator Hagel to advance and support policies to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons capability when he has opposed economic sanctions and military intervention? We all hope Iran’s nuclear ambitions can be dissuaded by sanctions and the need to use force to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons will not be necessary. The use of military force would be dangerous and costly. But, a nuclear Iran would be far more so. It would be the most destabilizing event in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.
“Senator Hagel’s opposition to the use of sanctions; his apparent confusion about Administration policy and its implications; and his apparent incomprehension of the threat a nuclear-armed Iran poses to international stability is alarming and would cause other nations to doubt the credibility of the President’s commitments.
“Mr. President, Senator Hagel is an honorable man, who has sacrificed much and bravely for our nation. About his character and love of country, there can be no doubt or debate. However, his positions on the principal national security issues facing our country – the Iranian nuclear program; the resurgent Islamist terrorist threat in North Africa and the Middle East; and, more broadly, whether we should maintain our ability to project strength in defense of our interests and allies – indicate to me a disqualifying lack of professional judgment. Also, Senator Hagel’s complete lack of experience in running an enterprise of such size and complexity as the Department of Defense casts further doubt on the advisability of his nomination.
“Therefore, despite my esteem for Senator Hagel, on the basis of his record, I will not support his confirmation. I say this with regret, but he is the wrong person at the worst time for the job. This day, we can – and must – do better.
“Thank you, Mr. President.”
###
|