MAD MISSION CREEP

The nation's top military leader [Gen.Martin Dempsey] told Congress Thursday that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops as they engage in more complex missions in the campaign against Islamic State militants.
....

Joining him at the witness table was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said the coalition was making progress in the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle. 
....

Hagel maintained that the U.S. personnel will not be involved in ground combat.

Tell me another, Mr Secretary.

The US should be out of the Middle East altogether, except for strictly humanitarian purposes to aid the vast numbers of refugees who have lost their homes or been driven out into surrounding territory. I do not speak of humanitarian purposes as broadly as the Obama administration interprets the phrase to include members of the US military, arms, and other types of military aid. The US has made the situation worse rather than better each time we intervene, and it's way past time for us to allow the countries in the Middle East to work out their own destinies.

With regard to humanitarian aid, our efforts fall woefully short, considering our part in contributing to the chaos of death and destruction that now exists.

HAGEL CONFIRMED AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Former Senator Chuck Hagel was finally confirmed as Secretary of Defense, after his confirmation was stalled in the Senate by members of the GOP.  Senate Republicans view Hagel as a traitor to the party ever since he turned against the Iraq war and Bush's conduct of the war when he was in the Senate, which gave them reason enough to oppose his nomination.  Only four Republicans voted to confirm.

Back in late 2011, Senator Lindsey Graham, one of  the most vehement opponents of Hagel's confirmation, suggested the US might have to go to war with Pakistan.

From the AP:

A Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said Sunday that the U.S. should consider military action against Pakistan if it continues to support terrorist attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.

"The sovereign nation of Pakistan is engaging in hostile acts against the United States and our ally Afghanistan that must cease, Sen. Lindsey Graham told "Fox News Sunday."

He said if experts decided that the U.S. needs to "elevate its response," he was confident there would be strong bipartisan support in Congress for such action.

From Juan Cole:

The GOP Orcs have a further list of countries they’d like to invade and occupy. Senator Lindsey Graham added Pakistan to the list. Does anybody else in the known universe think it is a good idea for the US abruptly to go to war with the world’s sixth-largest country, which is a nuclear power, and which is backed by China? I mean, shouldn’t this man just be declared clinically insane and mercifully put in an institution instead of being allowed to strut the halls of power?

I burst out laughing at Juan Cole's comments about Lindsey Graham's suggestion that we may have to go to war against Pakistan. Then I caught myself and realized that it's not funny at all that people like Graham and others in the Senate, who must always have a war going, operate in the highest halls of power in our country.  We can only hope that the "strong bipartisan support" in Congress for a war with Pakistan has evaporated, if it was ever present.

DISPLEASED SENATORS WRITE A LETTER

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Obama:

Last Thursday, the Senate voted to continue its consideration of your nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as our nation’s next Secretary of Defense.  While we respect Senator Hagel’s honorable military service, in the interest of national security, we respectfully request that you withdraw his nomination.

It would be unprecedented for a Secretary of Defense to take office without the broad base of bipartisan support and confidence needed to serve effectively in this critical position.  Over the last half-century, no Secretary of Defense has been confirmed and taken office with more than three Senators voting against him.  Further, in the history of this position, none has ever been confirmed with more than 11 opposing votes.  The occupant of this critical office should be someone whose candidacy is neither controversial nor divisive.

In contrast, in 2011, you nominated Leon Panetta, who was confirmed by the Senate with unanimous support.  His Pentagon tenure has been a huge success, due in part to the high degree of trust and confidence that Senators on both sides of the aisle have placed in him.  The next Secretary of Defense should have a similar level of broad-based bipartisan support and confidence in order to succeed at a time when the Department of Defense faces monumental challenges, including Iran’s relentless drive to obtain nuclear weapons, a heightened threat of nuclear attack from North Korea, potentially deep budget cuts, a strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, military operations in Afghanistan, the ongoing Global War on Terror, the continued slaughter of Syrian civilians at the hands of their own government, and other aftermath of the Arab Spring.

Likewise, Senator Hagel’s performance at his confirmation hearing was deeply concerning, leading to serious doubts about his basic competence to meet the substantial demands of the office.  While Senator Hagel’s erratic record and myriad conversions on key national security issues are troubling enough, his statements regarding Iran were disconcerting.  More than once during the hearing, he proclaimed the legitimacy of the current regime in Tehran, which has violently repressed its own citizens, rigged recent elections, provided material support for terrorism, and denied the Holocaust.

Regarding U.S. policy on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Senator Hagel displayed a seeming ambivalence about whether containment or prevention is the best approach, which gives us great concern.  Any sound strategy on Iran must be underpinned by the highly credible threat of U.S. military force, and there is broad bipartisan agreement on that point.  If Senator Hagel becomes Secretary of Defense, the military option will have near zero credibility.  This sends a dangerous message to the regime in Tehran, as it seeks to obtain the means necessary to harm both the United States and Israel.

We have concluded that Senator Hagel is not the right candidate to hold the office of Secretary of Defense, and we respectfully request that you withdraw his nomination.  Thank you for your consideration.

The letter is signed by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), David Vitter (R-La.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

From the Washington post.

I see my senator, David Vitter (R-LA), signed the letter.  I'm disappointed but not surprised.  Would the senators who signed have been satisfied if Sen Hagel had said we should attack Iran forthwith?  The Obama administration ended our involvement in one war not so very long ago and is in the process of extricating our military from another war, but the grandstanding senators (you know who you are) and their followers seemingly can't allow the country a breather from military conflict.  No doubt Hagel's "erratic record and myriad conversions" include his public disapproval of George Bush's handling of the Iraq War, but he was hardly the lone supporter of the war who turned sour on the enterprise as the situation in Iraq went bad, and more people became convinced that there never were WMD in Iraq, nor was Saddam even close to having nuclear weapon capability.

Chuck Hagel would not have been my first choice as Secretary of Defense, but, if I were a member of the Senate, I'd vote to confirm him without hesitation.  Republicans eating their own for no good reason that I can fathom is a sorry spectacle.  Shame on you, senators.