Who replaces Hagel?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/politics/defense-secretary-hagel-to-step-down/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will step down from his position, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Monday.

Hagel, who has served in this position since February 2013, was forced out by President Barack Obama, CNN confirmed from several sources.

White House officials, however, are portraying this as a mutual decision.

Administration officials said there was a series of discussions over the past several weeks with the President, initiated by Hagel. The talks covered a "broader discussion of national security for the next two years," a defense official said.

Normally, I do surveys. However, there are too many variables here.

[Renew Deal]

1. A Democrat

[rurallib]

3. doubtful

everyone knows that only republicans know anything about defense and the economy.
for the humor impaired

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, this administration really played into that Right Wing meme by keeping the Republicans all

over National Security. See the NSA, Gates, Hagel.

Right wingers use this to further the lie that Dems know nothing about National Security, are weak and can't defend this country. Even a Dem President has to admit this, I have been told.

[vi5]

28. Validating right wing meme's

This administration loves to buy into Republican framing.

The deficit, education, taxes, defense, etc. Regardless of individual actions, the biggest damage done has been to permanently entrench their terms of debate.

"When even a socialst liberal like Barak Obama agrees......."

[on point]

31. You are absolutely right. One of the big reasons the dems lost the election. Dems need to fight back

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. Wes Clark, perhaps?

[Lurks Often]

8. Absolutely not! Look into the Pristina International Airport incident

and that will tell why Clark could quite possibly be the worst possible choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport_incident

[Renew Deal]

11. I'm not all that concerned about it.

[Lurks Often]

14. I am, it shows remarkably poor decisions making skills

perhaps combined with an overwhelming ego. There was no justification for ordering troops to capture the airport and take prisoner armed Russian troops that were working WITH Nato on peace keeping operations in Kosovo.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

13. Sorry, I don't see the problem

The Russians were essentially supporting Serbs who were ethnically cleansing (read: murdering in cold blood) ethnic Albanians. I have no problem with Clark's actions in that context.

[Lurks Often]

16. See post 14, it wasn't worth the risk of a shooting war with the Russians

[Algernon Moncrieff]

19. Russia wasn't going to start WWIII over an airport in Kosovo

... and they didn't have the economic wherewithal to start a major ground offensive at that time. Europe got week knees because they always get scared that Russia will cut off the NG pipeline. I think that's the worst that would have happened.

[Lurks Often]

24. You don't take that chance over something as trivial as what occurred

If I had been President or Sec of Def I would have fired Clark right then and there and may even had gone for a court martial. Clark should have kicked the decision to fire on the Russians at the airport up the President or at least the Sec of Def.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. The Russian presence was part of the Serbian landscape

Clark's mission was to secure Kosovo and stop the murder of the Albanians. It is a mission that I fully supported, and I would not want a General or a Defense Secretary that is as risk-averse as you suggest. I repeat, the Russia of that time wasn't going to start WWIII with anyone.

[Lurks Often]

35. It was not Clark's place to make that decision

and nothing you post will ever change my belief that he should have been court-martialed.

There was NO reason for Clark not to kick the decision up to President Clinton, this wasn't a decision that needed to be made in a split second.

I most certainly want a general or Secretary of Defense sufficiently risk adverse as to not take the chance of getting into a shooting war with the Russians over the trivial matter of who controlled an airport.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

36. And I want a General who will take the airport

L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!

He could have been Court Martialed, but that would not have made him wrong. The Army Court martialed Billy Mitchell, you may recall.

[Lurks Often]

38. Aren't you just the warhawk

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. If you are injecting troops into a situation, you use them

Russia had troops supporting the oppsite side in that action. The airport neede to be secured, The Russians were in the way.

I'm not going to second-guess the actions of the Commander-on-the-scene over the need to take a legitimate military target. Bill Clinton and the Sec Def at the time (Bill Cohen, IIRC) knew the Russians were present in Kosovo when we sent the troops to stop the massacre. They knew the risks up front. This is not like Korea, where Doug MacArthur was told repeatedly not to engage the Chinese; was told repeatedly not to cross the Yalu; and ignored intelligence that China was prepared to strike across the border with overwhelming force.

I'm not a war hawk, but when the use of troops is necessary, I want leaders who are audacious and who will accomlish the missions they are given. Clark did just that, and many Kosovar Albanians owe him their lives.

[Renew Deal]

21. Apparently Clark judged the "risk" correctly.

[Lurks Often]

27. No, his British second in command refused to carry out the order

and it got escalated to the uniformed heads of the British and American military.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/10/world/us-general-was-overruled-in-kosovo.html

[patricia92243]

5. Amen!!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

20. Joe Sestak?

Joseph Ambrose "Joe" Sestak, Jr. (born December 12, 1951) is an American politician and former U.S. Navy three-star admiral. A member of the Democratic Party, he represented Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 2007 to 2011 and was the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in 2010, losing to Republican nominee Pat Toomey. He was and remains the highest-ranking military official ever elected to the United States Congress.[1]

Sestak was a member of the United States Navy for over 30 years. He served as the Director for Defense on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and held a series of operational commands, including commanding the USS George Washington carrier strike group during combat operations in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean in 2002.

Sestak was elected to the House of Representatives in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He declined to run for re-election in 2010, instead running for the Senate. He faced incumbent Senator Arlen Specter (who had recently switched from the Republican Party) in the Democratic primary and defeated him 54% to 46%. In the general election, he was narrowly defeated by Republican nominee Pat Toomey, 51% to 49%, a margin of 80,229 votes out of almost 4 million cast. He is seeking a rematch with Toomey in the 2016 election.

[mmonk]

2. Who knows? I'm thinking a hawk, yes man combo

but hope I'm wrong.

[L0oniX]

47. *

[srican69]

6. McCain

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. When do we hold the special election in Arizona????

And how soon can we fire the Senior Senator after we've replaced him?

[yeoman6987]

15. He was just reelected in 2012

Sadly if you can't get Walker out of Wisconsin, you can't get McCain out of Arizona especially recall. However, the Tea Party wants him out so maybe....the choice might not be any better.

[kentuck]

43. I think that would be perfect choice.

And he would probably take the offer.

[Bettie]

7. No one

There is no way a senate in Republican hands will ever confirm or even have hearings on any nominee for that or any position within the government while Obama is in office.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

12. If we were talking a judge, I'd agree

However, most Republicans want action against ISIS. That said, certain nominees wouldn't make it through committee -- Napolitano and Susan Rice head that list.

[yeoman6987]

17. Susan Rice would end up 100-0 no.

[sabrina 1]

23. That would be a good thing. Rice is not much different from her namesake when it comes to FP.

[Bettie]

18. You give them far more credit than I do

I start with the assumption that they won't move a single thing that the president supports, for example, his nominee for, well, anything.

[Liberal_Dog]

25. I Disagree

I don't see them doing that with a SecDef appointment.

Besides, Obama will probably choose another Republican for the position.

[Bettie]

26. That would be worse than no confirmation

I'm sick to death of our side dancing to their tune at every turn.

[pinboy3niner]

41. Even the Republicans calling for holding up nominatins exclude national security positions

They don't want to be seen as undermining security.

[still_one]

10. No one. The republican Congress won't approve anyone

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Oo! Oo! Me! Picke me!

*waves hand furiously from the back of the room*

[ucrdem]

32. Holder

works for me . . .

[Algernon Moncrieff]

34. I'm thinking he wouldn't make it out of comittee

That said, does he have military experience?

[ucrdem]

39. He's on the premises

If Hagel's out today that's about the only qualification he needs. But no mil experience that I can find, and a senate confirmation would be difficult, if it came down to it.

[kelliekat44]

33. They won't approve anyone. Just let Obama be in charge of everything. nt

[hfojvt]

37. pretty sure it's Marx

according to the dialectic.

[Ykcutnek]

40. Hopefully someone that will be effective in helping Obama shape his legacy.

In the final couple of years as a lame duck, foreign policy is one of those areas POTUS has a lot of flexibility.

[Arkana]

44. Why did I think he was gone already?

Anyway, can't pull anyone from the Senate--every seat counts now.

[dgibby]

45. J. Lindsey McGraham perhaps? n/t

[L0oniX]

46. Some rich fucker with a lot of MIC stocks?