OPINION - Shields and Gerson 12/21/2018

"Shields and Gerson on Mattis’ resignation, congressional stalemate" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week’s political news, including the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the congressional scramble to fund the government and avoid a partial shutdown.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  The White House and Congress may have clinched that new criminal justice law this week, but, this evening, they are on the brink of a partial government shutdown, even as they continue to process the resignation of the secretary of defense.

Here to analyze this week of upheaval are Shields and Gerson.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Hello to both of you.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  So, I don't think, Mark, you could call it an orderly week in Washington.  Yes, there was this agreement the President signed, the criminal justice reform bill today, but here we are, just hours away from yet another government shutdown.

What does it say about the way things are working right now in our government?

Mark Shields:  Well, not well, Judy.

I mean, we went from a week ago, if you recall, in the White House, which seems eons ago, when Senator Schumer and Democratic House leader and speaker-to-be Pelosi met with the President, and the President manfully stepped up and said, I will take the shutdown, and I will be happy to do it on my — put it to me.

Then to an agreement with the Senate it would stay — they would fund it through the year, and then come back and revisit it, and then immediately a reaction, a revulsion, if you would, from the President's longest and strongest supporters, TV commentators on the right such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and said that this was a sellout on the wall, Ann Coulter going so far as to say his presidency was a joke, and that he had scammed the American people.

So now we have to have funding for the wall, or else.  And so that's really where it is.  I mean, it's loggerheads, wherever loggerheads are found.  I think they're somewhere outside of Bozeman, Montana.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  But, no, that's where it is.

Judy Woodruff:  Michael, so the President is pointing a finger at the Democrats.  The Democrats are saying, wait a minute, you're the one who said a few days ago you would be proud to own this shutdown.

So where does the fault lie?

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  Well, big picture, this shows how easy the President of the United States is to manipulate.

He had agreed to a deal.  Then some of his toughest supporters, Limbaugh and Coulter and some of the team in the FOX News morning programs, came out against it, and he changed his view like a puppet on a string.  It was really extraordinary, a sign of weak leadership.

And I can bet you that Russia and China and North Korea look at something like that, about how easy this President is to manipulate.  So, that's the context for this.

You know, so I don't think that he can make a particularly good case, having agreed already to something rather reasonable, you know, that he changed his view with good reason.  He can't make that case.

Judy Woodruff:  And we heard Senator Rubio saying they were told at the White House a few days ago by the vice President that they had agreed, that they were…

Mark Shields:  At the luncheon, at the luncheon of the senators.

Judy Woodruff:  That's right.

Mark Shields:  That's right.  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Mark, where is this — is there any good outcome from this?  I mean, they're still negotiating.  We don't know — at this hour.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  They're still negotiating, Judy.  And I don't know.

I think there may be some political necessity right now for it to be shut down for a while.  The President — I don't know.  But it's tough.  I mean, the people are leaving town, have left town.

And, you know, the week was — the trauma of the week was Secretary Mattis, and there's no question about it.  That was the monumental event.

And I would say that there was alarm after the President's appearance at Helsinki with Mr. Putin.  I think there was alarm after the firing of FBI Director Comey.

But there was panic, bipartisan, nonpartisan panic, in this city, and I think in the country and in the world, when Jim Mattis, General Jim Mattis, left as Secretary of Defense.

I mean, he was seen, and I think rightfully so, as the thoughtful, well-read, well-prepared, country-before-self leader who believed in reciprocal burdens and benefits to the United States with other countries, and was fighting that cause, and had some influence on Donald Trump, but left on his own terms.

Judy Woodruff:  And we talked about this earlier in the program with some of our other guests, Leon Panetta, Richard Haass, Senator Rubio, Michael.

But what does this say about this President, that, at this stage, two years in, he and James Mattis are separating?

Michael Gerson:  I talked with a non-histrionic member of — Republican member of the Senate today, who said twice in the course of our conversation:  "We are in peril.  We are in peril."

Now, some of the reason is because all of our allies did rely on him to provide the intel, is the President serious about his latest attacks on us or not?

And he was — he assured our allies.  But he played another role among Republicans in the Senate, was to provide some level of assurance that the most basic purposes of government were being fulfilled.  They could say, I don't like his tweets, and his policy is absurd, and he changes his mind on this, and I'm critical of all this, but at least he has Mattis in that place.

And now they have lost "but at least."  And that, I think, is the big change.  You know, you look at his resignation letter, which coldly and rationally said to the President, you do not understand our friends, and you do not understand our enemies.

And that's about it, right?

(LAUGHTER)

Michael Gerson:  I mean, there's no one else to understand.  It was a comprehensive critique of the President by the Secretary of Defense, you know, not an angry one, but a very serious one.

And to leave that as a document of our time is, you know, unprecedented, extraordinary.

Judy Woodruff:  I think back, Mark, to the anonymous person who wrote that letter to The New York Times that:  I'm inside this administration.  I'm fighting for the things that matter to this country.

But where is the check?  I put this question to Senator Rubio and the others.  Where is the check on the President, for those who think that things have just — are going to run amok now?

Mark Shields:  Not to be partisan, but I think it's Republicans, the kind of people that Michael was talking to today, that I have talked to, who basically have been mute, who stand paralyzed by the Mark Sanford experience, namely, the former governor and then congressman from South Carolina, who President Trump — who alienated President Trump and who President Trump opposed and defeated in his primary.

And I think they live in — have lived in mortal fear.  It's time for them to man up, step up.  And I just — I think, Judy, the Mattis thing is so big, that, picking up on what Michael said, most responses in this town to anything that happens are in silos politically.  They're politically predictable.

And, on this one, you had almost the same statement from Seneca, South Carolina's, favorite son and Donald Trump's new best friend, Lindsey Graham, Lindsey Graham, a hawk on defense, and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader from the Bay Area of San Francisco, a card-carrying liberal.

And they both said the same thing, that the loss of Jim Mattis was a tragedy for the country and a loss that's incalculable.  And so that's what I say about the sense of panic.

Judy Woodruff:  And you had the comment, unusual comment from the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Michael, saying that he was concerned about the reason, just what you were citing, the reasons that Secretary Mattis gave in his letter.

But my question remains, where is the check?  If there should be a check, where is it going to come from?

Michael Gerson:  Well, unfortunately, Senator Rubio is right.  On foreign policy issues, the President has a lot of leeway.  They can't force him to stay in Syria.

And part of this concerns not just personnel.  It's actually policy.  Getting out of Syria is a terrible idea, from many different perspectives.  We are in the process of pursuing a buildup to a major operations against ISIS in the Euphrates Valley that now is off the table.

You know, this — it gives the Turks free hand with the Kurds.  Those things are also bothering members of Congress.  And, you know, they will register their dissent in the debates.  There will be debates on the new Secretary of Defense.  There will have to be congressional debates on that.

And you — we will see how they react to the broader Mueller report.  That will be very, very important.  But, you know, there are limits to what you can do on foreign policy, I'm afraid.

James Mattis' Resignation Letter

Dear Mr.  President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance.  Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.  While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.  Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world.  Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances.  NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America.  The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours.  It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.  That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.  We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.  The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February.  Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.

TRUMP DEFENSE POLICY - James Mattis Resigns in Protest and the Fallout

"Defense Secretary Mattis resigns, citing differences over the role of alliances" PBS NewsHour 12/20/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A day after President Trump announced a surprise decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, Secretary of Defense James Mattis submitted his resignation, which will take effect in February.  The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Gordon joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why the policy differences between the President and Mattis were “too profound” to allow a sustainable working relationship.

"Mattis departure ‘puts our nation at risk,’ Panetta says" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The resignation of U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis is putting our nation at risk, two top former defense and national security leaders say.

To lose Mattis “increases the danger in this country,” not only because the retired four-star general brought valuable experience to the role, but also because of his belief in some long-standing tenets of American foreign policy, said Leon Panetta, who served as secretary of defense and CIA director during the Obama administration.

In his resignation letter, Mattis pointed to the fact that he and President Donald Trump could not agree on several foreign policy and national security issues.

Richard Haass, the director of policy planning at the State Department during the George W. Bush administration, said that is in some ways even more concerning than Mattis’ departure itself because it’s not clear whether the President will take the advice of whoever serves as secretary of defense next.

“Even if someone were to espouse [Mattis’ point of view] … this President simply is not going to listen,” said Haass, now the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Rubio: Trump ‘about to make a major blunder’ on Syria" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) said President Donald Trump “is abandoning that effort [in Syria] before it is completely finished,” and that it is the job of Congress to attempt to convince him otherwise.

“I think he is about to make a major blunder” by pulling out of Syria, Rubio told the PBS NewsHour anchor and Managing Editor Judy Woodruff.

The President’s announcement this week that U.S. troops would be pulling out from Syria, where it has been aiding forces against Islamic State militants, surprised and outraged members of Congress, including some loyal to the President.  Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday offered his resignation in a blistering letter about the importance of America’s global alliances — a decision many believe was motivated by the President’s decision on Syria.

Rubio said that what concerned him the most from Mattis’ abrupt departure was what the Defense Secretary wrote in his letter, which seemed to “confirm our fears” about upcoming decisions facing the Trump administration.

“I’m deeply concerned that we’re about to undertake a series of foreign policy decisions that are going to undermine our security, that are going to undermine our alliances and that are going to embolden our adversaries.”

"Around the world, allies express dismay at Mattis departure" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reverberated around the world Friday.  Although he disagreed with the President repeatedly over major issues, the retired four-star Marine Corps general was widely admired and seen as a stabilizing force within the administration.  John Yang has global reaction to the departure of a military legend described as "a partner for all occasions."

NORTH KOREA - Messages

"Standing at the world's most dangerous border, Mattis sends a warning to North Korea" PBS NewsHour 10/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On an unannounced visit to the heavily fortified demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reaffirmed the U.S. alliance with the South in the face of increasing provocations from the North, while declaring a commitment to diplomacy and denuclearization of the peninsula.  John Yang reports on the administration's efforts to increase pressure on North Korea.

"When we talk about North Korea, we forget what's happening to its people" PBS NewsHour 10/27/2017 😢

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  When Min Jin Lee sees the latest headlines about nuclear weapons in North Korea, she thinks of her father, who fled the republic when he was 16, and lost touch with his family.  And Lee thinks of not just the remains of her family still there, but the millions of people in that nation who are like hostages in their own land.  Lee offers her humble opinion on having compassion for the people of North Korea.

TRUMP AGENDA - Afghanistan, More U.S. Troops

"Can more U.S. troops in Afghanistan help end the war?" PBS NewsHour 6/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As part of the Trump administration's review of America's 16-year war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary James Mattis announced that the President has given him the authority to decide appropriate troop levels.  The U.S. commander in that country has recommended boosting the number by thousands more.  William Brangham speaks with retired Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

"Petraeus: We went to Afghanistan for a reason, and we need to stay" PBS NewsHour 6/16/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in light of a deteriorating security situation.  Retired Gen. David Petraeus joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the need for a long-term U.S. military commitment in that country, civilian casualties in the coalition fight against the Islamic State, the American policy on the crisis facing Qatar, and more.

FIGHTING ISIS - Battlefield and OnLine

"Fighting ISIS, on the battlefield and online" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Is the U.S. making headway in the fight against the Islamic State group?  Judy Woodruff talks to retired Col. Derek Harvey, a former Army intelligence officer, and Brendan Koerner of Wired Magazine, about the military offensive against ISIS, including the killing of a senior leader, and the resiliency of the group on social media.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford, spoke this morning at the Pentagon about the fight against the Islamic State.  While hailing operations to kill top ISIS leaders like the one we reported earlier, they sought to put the longer war in context.

ASHTON CARTER, Secretary of Defense:  There's no question that this individual and other individuals we have eliminated have been part of the apparatus of ISIL to recruit and to motivate foreign fighters, both to return from Iraq and Syria to countries in Europe and elsewhere, and also simply by using the Internet and other communications to do so.

Even if it's just inspiration, it still takes you back to Iraq and Syria and the need to eliminate the sources of that inspiration.

GEN. JOSEPH DUNFORD, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff:  While ISIL has not been able to seize ground in the past several months, that hasn't precluded them from conducting terrorist attacks, and it hasn't precluded them from conducting operations that are more akin to guerrilla operations than the conventional operations that we saw when they were seizing territory.

So, I think the momentum is in our favor.  I think there's a lot of reasons for us to be optimistic about the next several months.  But by no means would I say that we're about to break the back of ISIL or that the fight is over.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Dunford and Carter also spoke of expanding the role of U.S. Marines in Northern Iraq and the possibility of sending more forces in the coming weeks, adding to the nearly 4,000 already there.

We examine the state of the fight against ISIS now with retired Army Colonel Derek Harvey.  He was an intelligence officer and special adviser to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus.  He's now a professor at the University of South Florida.  And Brendan Koerner is a contributing editor at “Wired” magazine.  He's the author of an upcoming article about ISIS and its use of social media.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/29/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Dennis Hastert charges, Ashton Carter Iraq comments" PBS NewsHour 5/29/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the indictment and allegations of misconduct against former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s comments about the Iraqi army’s defeat at Ramadi, 2016 campaign announcements from Rick Santorum and George Pataki.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/5/2014

"Shields and Brooks on who gets credit for jobs growth, protests on race and justice" PBS NewsHour 12/5/2014

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the better-than-expected jobs report, the nomination of Ash Carter for secretary of defense and the aftermath of the grand jury decision on the killing of Eric Garner.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  I think so.

Judy, Reince Priebus, the Republican national chairman today, said that 300,000 jobs, 323,000 created, ought to be expected every month.  It shouldn’t be an exception.  And just a historical perspective, during the eight years of President Bush, there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States, and of that 2.1 million, 1.8 million were in the public sector, state, local or federal government.

That means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector created in eight months — in eight years, rather, net.  So, I mean, this is rather remarkable.  And I just point out that in the — David touched on the fact that more jobs have been created in the United States in the last four years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined.

So, it’s a record.  And there’s just one other little item, and it’s not unimportant.  And this is where David and I do disagree, I know; 70 years since World War II, 36 years with a Republican president, 34 years with a Democratic president, in those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created by Republican — under Republican Presidents, while Republicans were office, OK, a little over half the time.

In 34 years, there were 63.7 million created by Democrats.  That’s 29 million more.  Perhaps it’s an accident once or twice or what.  But, I mean, at some point, the Democrats ought to be trumpeting the fact that they have been better on the economy and job creation than have been their opposition.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE - Designate Ashton Carter

"How Ashton Carter differs from Obama’s past defense secretaries" PBS NewsHour 12/5/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  President Obama announces a change of command at the Defense Department, as the military faces multiple challenges abroad.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  Today, I’m pleased to announce my nominee to be our next secretary of defense, Mr. Ash Carter.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The President’s event in the Roosevelt Room at the White House confirmed what was widely expected.  He’s chosen Ash Carter to succeed Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon.

BARACK OBAMA:  With a record of service that has spanned more than 30 years as a public servant, as an adviser, as a scholar, Ash is rightly regarded as one of our nation’s foremost national security leaders.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Carter is a Pentagon veteran, although he’s never served in the military himself.  He was deputy secretary from October 2011 to December 2013, and, before that, the technology and weapons-buying chief.

ASHTON CARTER, Secretary of Defense Designate:  It’s an honor and a privilege for me to be nominated for the position of Secretary of Defense.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The honor brings with it a host of major challenges, including the battle against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, winding down the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, and the resulting struggle with Russia, and deep budget cuts straining the Defense Department.

There’s also the question of working with the White House.  Two previous secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, accused Obama aides of micromanagement.  And Hagel reportedly complained of a lack of influence.

But Carter made clear he means to have his say.

ASHTON CARTER:  If confirmed in this job, I pledge to you my most candid strategic advice.  And I pledge also that you will receive equally candid military advice.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Republicans will control the Senate that considers Carter’s nomination.  Today, they generally praised his qualifications, but Arizona Senator John McCain warned that he, too, may have limited sway at the White House.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/28/2014

"Shields and Brooks on the Ferguson ruling, Hagel resignation" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the grand jury verdict on the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, the resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, plus what our commentators are thankful for this Thanksgiving.

DOD BUDGET - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's Proposed Budget Cuts

"How will proposed military savings affect strategy and security?" PBS Newshour 2/24/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Now: striking the balance between national security and budget reality.

CHUCK HAGEL, Secretary of Defense (news brief):  Good afternoon.

GWEN IFILL:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out plans this afternoon to cut troops and close bases, reshaping the nation’s military after more than a decade of war.

CHUCK HAGEL:  We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States.

GWEN IFILL:  A key part of that repositioning, shrinking the Army from 522,000 active-duty soldiers to between 440,000-450,000, the fewest since World War II.

The Army National Guard would be reduced as well, but Hagel said it can be done without compromising national defense.

CHUCK HAGEL:  Our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater — as it must be — while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater.

GWEN IFILL:  The budget also calls for eliminating the venerable A-10 Warthog aircraft, used for close air support of ground troops, and for replacing the iconic U-2 spy plane with a force of Global Hawk drones.

Among the other recommendations: increasing health insurance deductibles and co-pays for military families and retirees, reducing subsidies to military commissaries, and closing more military bases.

Hagel also proposes freezing salaries of generals and admirals and limiting pay raises for military personnel to 1 percent.  He said delaying such decisions actually hurts morale.

"‘Beloved’ A-10 Warthog aircraft may not survive Pentagon Attack" PBS Newshour 2/25/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The A-10 Warthog was designed specifically to fly in low and attack enemy forces, loitering over the battlefield.  But top Pentagon officials now say the Warthog's days are over.  The Defense Department plans to eliminate the entire fleet and save $3.5 billion over five years in order to save for newer and more capable aircraft.  Kwame Holman reports on the debate.

How the A-10 Warthog became 'the most survivable plane ever

INTERVIEW - Robert Gates, "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War"

"In 'Duty,' Gates reflects on debates waged behind the scenes of war" PBS Newshour 1/14/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  One of the most talked-about and controversial books of the new year went on sale today.  Its author, Robert Gates, has served eight presidents, held key posts at the White House, was head of the CIA and secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.

The book, "Duty:  Memoirs of a Secretary of War," sparked a frenzy of headlines ahead of its official release for his public criticism of the administration he recently left.

I spoke to him earlier today.  He was wearing a neck brace after falling at his home last week.

Secretary Robert Gates, welcome to the NewsHour.

POLITICS - Hagel Confirmation Hearing

"Chuck Hagel Defends Record at Confirmation Hearing" PBS Newshour 1/31/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel faced a hostile reception today from half of the committee that must sign off before he can become secretary of defense.

His Senate confirmation hearing centered heavily on criticism from his one-time Republican colleagues.

The atmosphere was friendly enough at the outset, as Chuck Hagel began his big day before the Armed Services Committee.  He quickly sought to allay concerns on both sides about his positions on everything from Iran to Israel to nuclear weapons.

FORMER SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-Neb.:  No one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record.  My overall world view has never changed, that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world.

I believe, and always have believed, that America must engage in the world, not retreat from the world, but engage from -- the world.  My record is consistent on these points.

COMMENT:  Typical Republicanism, no disagreement allowed, even from a Republican.

MILITARY - DoD Budget and Politics of Hagel Nomination

"Defense Department Budget Will Be Major Questioning Point for Nominee Hagel" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 1/29/2013

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Now we take a two-part look at President Obama's choice to be the next secretary of defense.

Confirmation hearings for former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel are set for Thursday.  Among other things, he is likely to face questions about the Pentagon's looming budget crisis. Automatic spending cuts set to take effect March first mean the Defense Department may have to find $52 billion in savings this year and half-a-trillion dollars over the next decade.

NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN (Newshour):  Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently sounded the alarm at the prospect of looming budget cuts.

DEFENSE SECRETARY LEON PANETTA, United States:  The most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty.  We're going to suffer some damage.

KWAME HOLMAN:  That damage could be felt soon.  Hundreds of thousands of the Pentagon's civilian employees will face furloughs and reduced paychecks as early as April.

"In Some States, Political Ads Take Aim at Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 1/29/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Political ads both on TV and in newspapers have been launched against Chuck Hagel, nominee for Secretary of Defense.  Judy Woodruff talks with New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg about who may be behind the campaigns and what affect they may have.

DOD - All Chuck Hagel Needs to Know

"Everything Chuck Hagel needs to know about the defense budget, in charts" by Brad Plumer, Washington Post 1/7/2013

On Monday afternoon, President Obama will nominate former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (R) as secretary of defense. The confirmation hearings are likely to focus on Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran. Yet the biggest headache likely to face the next defense secretary will almost certainly be the U.S. military budget.

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security. Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 billion to $530 billion — and that’s before accounting for the primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But now that those wars are ending and austerity is back in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start tightening its belt in 2013 and beyond. If Hagel gets confirmed as secretary of defense, he’ll have to figure out how best to do that.

Below, we’ve provided an overview of the U.S. defense budget — to get a better sense for what we spend on, and where Hagel might have to cut:

1) The United States spent 20 percent of its budget on defense in 2011

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

All told, the United States spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. (It does not, however, include benefits for veterans.)

U.S. defense spending is expected to rise in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in. (More on that below.)

2) Defense spending has been rising dramatically since 9/11

Here’s a historical chart of defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars. There’s a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam wars. There’s another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan. Then defense spending got cut significantly during the Clinton years until soaring to historically unprecedented levels after 9/11.

U.S. defense spending is set to fall again in 2013, though it will still be as high in real terms as it was at the height of the Reagan build-up.

3) U.S. defense spending largely consists of soldier pay, weapons procurement, and operations spending

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Graph: Dylan Matthews

In 2011, the Pentagon spent about $145 billion on personnel pay and housing, $113 billion on weapons procurement, and $256 billion on operations — the last largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Smaller amounts also were spent on R&D (about $66 billion) and nuclear programs ($18 billion), as well as construction, family housing and other programs ($5 billion).

My colleague Dylan Matthews created the graph above to show how these portions have changed over time. Personnel spending has stayed constant over the years, even as the number of soldiers in the U.S. military has shrunk (pay and benefits have increased). Weapons procurement can vary wildly. And operations spending has soared during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4) The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011

Needless to say, the United States remains the world’s dominant military power. The graph above comes from the Pete G. Peterson Foundation, which compiled data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

5) The U.S. military budget is poised to shrink in 2013 and beyond, although this won’t be the biggest downsizing it has ever faced.

Two big things are about to happen to military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. And, thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing both hard budget caps and a looming sequester that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).

That seems severe. Although, as the graph above from the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester is fully implemented, which no one expects, the drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War were far more drastic in inflation-adjusted dollars.

6) Even with the Budget Control Act, defense spending is likely to grow over the next decade, albeit more slowly

The chart above comes from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, who points out that even with the Budget Control Act caps and the sequester, overall U.S. military spending will still grow in inflation-adjusted terms over the next decade. It will just grow more slowly than it otherwise would have. (And, of course, if Congress finds a way to avert the defense cuts in the sequester, as some members would like to do, then it will grow even more quickly.)

7) The Pentagon and Congress are already rejiggering the military budget in response to austerity

Photo: Raytheon

Back in January, the Department of Defense unveiled its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 — a look at how it would deal with new budget constraints. As Wired’s Spencer Ackerman reported, the Pentagon wanted to downsize about 100,000 human soldiers and ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles.

Of course, the Pentagon doesn’t have the final say. Congress eventually passed its own $631 billion defense appropriations bill in December that made some changes to the Pentagon’s vision. Many of the weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire — such as three Navy cruisers — were kept in. The final did, however, make plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years.

8) The next secretary of defense will have to make further tough choices about the Pentagon’s budget

The chart above comes from a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which asked seven teams of experts to come up with ways to meet the Pentagon’s new spending constraints in the coming decades. It shows what areas different teams would cut — some experts advised heavily slashing the civilian workforce, others advocated cutting aircraft inventory. (There were some areas of consensus, though: surface ships were generally cut more than submarines, for instance.)

The cuts weren’t always painless. For instance: “Five of seven teams agreed that they could not fully resource their strategies under the assumed fiscal guidance unless they accepted near-term risk by reducing current readiness programs.” These are trade-offs Hagel will have to navigate.

9) Ordinary Americans want to cut defense spending far more than is already on the table

Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn’t likely to pay much attention here, but it’s a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/4/2013

"Shields and Brooks on New Year's Predictions, Budget Fights, Chuck Hagel" PBS Newshour 1/4/2013

Excerpt on Chuck Hagel

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): So, before we talk about this process of what's happening here, assuming these news reports today are right, Mark, and it is going to be Chuck Hagel the president nominates for Defense, good choice or no?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: I think Chuck Hagel comes with enormous strength for this position at this time.

First of all, I mean, the question is always raised, you know, is anybody able to run the Defense Department? He was a co-founder of Vanguard Cellular Systems, ran -- was a president and CEO of USO worldwide.

But nobody -- Leon Panetta, who has been, I think by all measures, a great secretary of defense, or certainly an outstanding secretary of defense, had no similar background. But I think what Chuck Hagel brings to the administration, in addition to his great credibility from his own military experience in combat, where he saved his brother's life, and his brother saved him, after he requested to go to Vietnam, with orders -- he enlisted in the Army, Chuck Hagel, with orders to Germany.

He instead went, enlisted, insisted on going to Vietnam. And he said that there he vowed that he would make sure the United States did not go into wars without thought, reflection, with all the elements to it. And that has been the hallmark of his foreign policy. It's always dangerous, Judy, in this town to be right on matters in which the established authorities are wrong.

And the established authorities were absolutely wrong about the nuclear capability and capacity of Iraq. Chuck Hagel raised red flags about that at the time, even though he did vote for the war. But he publicly went on. And so I think there are questions about him, but he's a Republican. It's bipartisanship. He brings, I think, credibility as an enlisted man.

I just think that there's a lot of strengths to him, and, plus, he's an interesting and thoughtful man.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot of strengths, David?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist: I more or less agree with that.

I spent -- first -- on three subjects, first, his integrity. I spent a lot of time with him during the Iraq war, and I didn't agree with where he was going, but he followed his conscience, he followed the evidence, and he did the hardest thing that is -- one of the very hard things, which is to be unpopular in your workplace.

And he was extremely unpopular with Republicans and with Democrats because he was going off on his own course. And I thought he showed great courage and integrity, even though I may have disagreed with him. On the substance, he's a realist. He's -- more or less, his views are similar to Colin Powell's, I would say.

I think that puts him very much in the part of the foreign policy establishment. The idea that he is beyond the bounds on Israel or any other subject is simply not true. He's a realist. He may not agree with you if you want to do more humanitarian interventions, the way Susan Rice actually would have, but the cautious use of power, but a pretty muscular use of power.

As for the management, that to me is the open question. He did run a business. But we have had two great managers in a row. We had Bob Gates and Leon Panetta.

IRAQ - Powell's Opinion

"Powell: We Are Losing In Iraq" Former Secretary Of State Says More Troops Are Not The Answer, CBS News

The United States is losing the war in Iraq but sending more troops to Baghdad is not the best way to change course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Face The Nation.

Powell said he agreed with the assessment of the Iraq Study Group co-chairmen, Lee Hamilton and James Baker, that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," and he also agreed with recently-confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the U.S. is not winning the war.

"So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing," Powell told Bob Schieffer in an exclusive interview. "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

President George W. Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq. The most likely choice would be to send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad.

A 3,500-man brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent to Kuwait soon after the holidays, CBS News correspondent David Martin reported on Friday. The troops would be available immediately should the president order a surge into Iraq.

There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.

Powell, also a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not see the military benefit of flooding Baghdad with American troops.

"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," he said, adding that the Iraqi government and security forces must take over.

"It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer," Powell said. "And in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that, and in the other cities, you need a police force to do that, and not the American troops."

Another voice of reason that I doubt Bush will actually listen to.

I admit, I'm pessimistic. Even now you can see the virtual claw-marks-on-the-floor as Bush is being dragged by many to change his policy in Iraq, which in Bush's eyes = "I was wrong." Am I the only one who has noted how dragged-out and tired Bush looks of late? This is a man who still resists, with all his might, the admission that he could possibly be wrong. In the end I think Bush will choose a policy on Iraq that will pay only lip-service to a policy change. His "new" policy will be only window-dressing.