Confirm Chuck Hagel, but have him answer questions

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Jan. 19, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    What seems to be missing from the public discourse on the military is the lack of appreciation of wht the military has become, as opposed to what it was. Generals and Admirals are politically appointed to mirror the politics of the civilian government. There are no "Pattons" or "MacArthurs" to be found in the upper crust of the military. Those who fought to win any conflict are "dinosaurs". There has not been a war since WWII that the military was permitted to "win". Wherever they are used is a political statement. Mr Hagel is no different.. He will mirror the administration's policies on where and how the military is used. His views on alliance with Israel are already in question in some circles.
    My answer - Elect only those to high office that will use the military as it should be.. For defense primarily, and to fight to win in the event of an attack on this country.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 19, 2013 3:14 a.m.

    I don't understand how his critical comments of Israel would be a problem being the Secretary of Defense. 1) I agree with him and 2) He is not the secretary of state. It seemed in the Bush year that Rumsfled, the secretary of defense and Cheney, the VP, controlled our foreign policy more than Colin Powell, the secretary of state. I hope that we are not going to go down that path again.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    As one who believes that the American Military is being controlled by a bunch of greedy, self aggrandizing seekers of world control with very little concern for the welfare of Americans, sounds like Chuck Hagel is the man for me. Can we get him to run for President?

    The Military Industrial Complex seems totally blind to the nature of the world today and to the nature of the war we are losing right now. Today we are in a war for the minds of men. There are no cities to bomb, ships to sink, lands to conquer with our giant monstrosities. It would seem that it would be obvious that our military is more concerned about business profits than protecting America.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 8:02 a.m.


    Don't we live in the jet age?

    How much longer does it truly take to deploy troops from Ft. Benning, Georgia than from a base in Germany? Is the few hours difference really worth the billions we spend on bases in Eurpoe?

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    "Might fewer than 54,000 U.S. forces in Germany suffice to defend that country, or Western Europe, from whatever threat they are there to deter?"

    I think we spend way, way too much on the military. Still, I've heard this talking point from a lot of people (usually conservatives who want to put down Europe). Clearly people who haven't thought things through.

    We're not there to defend Germany or Western Europe. We're there because it allows the military--and their families--to live in a safe, civilized country while being much, much closer to the action in the Middle East. Germany and the rest of Western Europe can defend themselves just fine. Germany, for example, has mandatory military service for almost all men, meaning most men in Germany have spent time serving in the German military. We're not there to protect them--we're their to make our wars easier to fight.

    Again, we're there for easy access to the Middle East and other trouble zones, not because Germany needs us.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 17, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    Geaorge Will is so talented at sounding totally reasonable while at the same time sticking daggers in the backs of those he is addre4ssing and discussing. These questions sound totally reasonable to be included in a Senate confirmation hearing and some of them are. But of course some of them are simply the use of eloquent language to degarde the president that he despises.

    I think it would be good for each member of Congress who voted for, or supported in anyway, the deployment of our military personnel in foriegn campaigns over the past thrity years to answer these same questions. Each one of them should be called to publically explain the reasons behind their choices.