Hagel Wrote Memo To White House Criticizing Syria Strategy
Source: CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Earlier this month, while on an trip to Latin America to discuss climate change, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sat down and wrote a highly private, and very blunt memo to National Security Advisor Susan Rice about U.S. policy toward Syria.
It was a detailed analysis, crafted directly by Hagel "expressing concern about overall Syria strategy," a senior U.S. official tells CNN. The official directly familiar with the contents declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The existence of the memo itself was first reported by the New York Times.
Hagel so far has not made his concerns public and is not likely to, according to the official. It comes at a time when the Pentagon is well aware there is growing, but anonymous chatter, that some White House officials are unhappy with Hagel's performance. So far there is no indication the President Barack Obama shares those views.
Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics/hagel-starr-syria-memo-white-house/index.html
Hagel Will Not Discuss 'critical' Syria Memo
WASHINGTON Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:23pm EDT
(Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stressed the need for honesty in internal government discussions on Thursday as he declined comment on a two-page internal memo he wrote on Syria policy, described as critical by people familiar with its contents.
The memo from Hagel to White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice was first reported by the New York Times, which said he warned President Barack Obama's Syria policy was in jeopardy due to its failure to clarify its intentions toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Two people familiar with its contents, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters they agreed with the description of the memo by the Times as critical.
Asked about the memo, Hagel told a Pentagon news conference: "We owe the president and we owe the National Security Council our best thinking on this."
more...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/us-mideast-crisis-hagel-memo-idUSKBN0IJ2UP20141030
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... with Secretary Hagel:
"The memo from Hagel to White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice was first reported by the New York Times, which said he warned President Barack Obama's Syria policy was in jeopardy due to its failure to clarify its intentions toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."
Just what exactly is the stance on Bashar al-Assad? Are we trying to tear him down? Do we want him to stay in power so as to not toss Syria into further chaos? And I imagine there are several other points to which you and I are not privy to.
I feel these are valid points that need clarifying.
Also, isn't the headline misleading?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Chirp, chirp....
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)One of them might have to go. I hope it's Rice.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
karynnj
(59,500 posts)What is bad here is that an internal memo that should have remained confidential was leaked. This with the leak of what Kerry called "damaging" comments on Netanyahu being chickensh_t, it is clear that there are some people within Obama's national security team - who knows what level - who are NOT being team players at this point. (By this, I am NOT suggesting it is Hagel. Consider that the leak does not hide that Hagel was the author of a memo. If he wanted his comments to be public, he just had to speak to any reporter available. If he wanted it confidential, he certainly would not have leaked it. (The in between possibility that he wanted the idea public, but not connected to him can also be ruled out as then the "leak" would not name him.)
What I see in the pattern of leaks is that they are all working against Obama and to a lesser degree, Kerry. (There is also a RW story that comes up in google in many of the usual places that has unnamed WH officials saying Kerry is out in space - not connected to the WH. Ignoring that Obama clearly put Kerry as lead on Iraq, Afghanistan (where he was unexpectedly very successful) and Iran - and has closely backed him on Israel. )
Here, it is hard from the OP's article to see in which way Hagel's opinion diverges. Reading this, it seems that he could be arguing either for targeting Assad now (as Turkey, many Republicans and possibly some Democrats want) OR either working on the diplomatic solution or simply accepting Assad.
Here is what is said:
"Obama faces criticism at home and abroad for looking at the crisis in Syria almost exclusively through the threat of the Islamic State, while failing to address attacks by Assad's forces that undermine the opposition that Washington will ultimately need.
The Obama administration's position is that Assad must go but it hopes to defer that challenge until later to focus on Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
Hagel suggested that the future governance of Syria needs to be at the core of American actions, now centered around air strikes against Islamic State targets and plans for training Syrian opposition forces.
"The fighting can go on for years and years to what end? ... It's in our interest not to have an unstable Middle East," Hagel said, stressing the need to manage current threats while focusing on "some longer term strategies and objectives."
If Hagel is pushing for targeting Assad now, then it may well be Kerry, who is a friend of his, with whom he is disagreeing. (Hagel was on the board of the Kerry aligned Amerrican Security Project that Gary Hart headed after he left the Senate before he joined the administration) It was Kerry in Senate and House hearings who very explicitly (especially with McCain) made the point that we were NOT going to target Assad until we had countered ISIS and also spoke of "deconflicting" with Syria - in terms of both of us fighting ISIS.
If this is so, I suspect that the leaks are coming from neo-con leaning Democrats who worry that the long term Obama/Kerry solution might - what O/K have called for for years, a political solution in Syria.
If the US helps reduce ISIS and AQ in Syria, it might have a better hand to get Syria to agree to a unity government without Assad. ie Think Iraq without Maliki, yet still with people from his party. Think also Afghanistan where the US helped create a unity government. Note also that in BOTH these countries, the formation of those unity governments was via the countries' own political processes.
Consider how different this is from the neocon efforts or the long term western strategy of putting "our" strongman in charge.
karynnj
(59,500 posts)Obama needs to find who these "sympathetic WH officials" are - especially remembering the neo con sympathies of the NYT over the last decade.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Turkey and other countries don't know for sure what we're going to do about Assad, period. We haven't made it clear, or shared our strategy with them, perhaps. Maybe we're stringing everyone along to buy time for cooperation with Iran (who still supports Assad) because of the nuke deal, but other countries do not care about that, or actively oppose it. That said, the memo is just broadly characterized and we can't know for sure what he's proposing. The nasty little insult about Kerry being like Sandra Bullock from "the White House" is most likely coming from Rice or Ben Rhodes, IMO. I think those two need to go, myself.
karynnj
(59,500 posts)- and there are various attacks on Hagel and Kerry on the internet. The WH has strongly denounced the Bullock nonsense -
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-31/white-house-says-john-kerry-is-no-sandra-bullock
Here is the NYT article that seemed to start it - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/world/middleeast/mounting-crises-raise-questions-on-capacity-of-obamas-team.html
You know I am biased ( My home here is the JK group), but it has seemed that the NYT has consistently tried to push Rice's and Power's importance to the detriment of Kerry's. A few examples -
After Kerry and Lavrov carefully negotiated the Syrian deal and the issued moved to the UN, the NYT had a very prominent article that basically argued that Power, if she negotiated a UN resolution on this would be a very consequential ambassador - ignoring that Kerry had already achieved agreement on the issue and Obama announced that the evening it happened.. In fact, both Power and the Russian UN ambassador tried to change the deal -- and Kerry and Lavrov had to work out the final wording (very similar to what they had to begin with).
Then, in an article on ebola, the NYT spoke of how Rice was coordinating the effort in West Africe -- in fact, Kerry spoke to the ambassadors of over a 100 countries at a State Department event in DC - and made the news mostly because he mentioned the excellent response of Cuba. In fact, Obama, Power (who went to Africa), Rice and Kerry are ALL working to get other countries to step up. Here, it is clearly everyone on the team helping -- and the team member with most of the strongest ties to other countries in Kerry. Not to mention, his daughter Dr Vanessa Kerry has been very involved in global health.
Given the NYT lead, I wonder if some of this is a Likud/neo con attack on both Hagel and Kerry.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)after the supposed upcoming bad midterm result when the media expects that someone will be fired and the staff "shaken up". The funny thing is, the NYT interviews the two people probably most responsible for the national security "inner circle" insularity that everyone is criticizing: Rice and McDonough. There are probably others: Jarrett, Blinken, Rhodes (I have no idea why a former fiction writer holds so much sway with the President, BTW--little Benny just needs to stick with speechwriting and hopefully isn't helping make policy.) It's nice that McDonough defends Kerry against disrespectful snark, but seriously, a good chief of staff wouldn't have allowed that to get out and diminish the SoS in the first place. And I do think it's funny that the biggest rap against Hagel is that he's "quiet" in policy meetings (for fear of leaks, so they leak his "quietness"--LOL--and he doesn't try to dominate or shut down Gen. Dempsey). Pointless inside-baseball complaint--his primary job is to manage the DoD and direct defense policy and maintain defense relationships with other countries, not be the loudest voice at the table. I am wondering who made the "chickenshit" remark about Netanyahu, though. Here's my three guesses: Biden, Rhodes, Rice.
karynnj
(59,500 posts)He has used language that is best not used at all or just in very very limited private circles. He also does have a tendency to let anger show. I also wonder how much Jeffery Goldberg might have contributed himself. It was common knowledge that in the first administration, there was real fear that Netanyahu could do something rash. (from Wikileaks) It is also clear that when Obama spoke to Rouhani and when Kerry started negotiating, they rejected that so did not let Netanyahu constrain them. The article speaks of that - you wonder if Goldberg prodded the person as to why he didn't -- and that led to the stupid words.
I would rule Hagel out because I doubt he would have used even a PC version of that word when speaking of a former commando. I would hope that ANY diplomat would see calling someone a coward would almost be daring them - not good. I don't really know enough of Rhodes or Rice to know if they would - I would like to assume both would have the diplomatic skill to know that it would be dynamite and a very pro Israel reporter would use it.
I am not sure that a CoS could keep all leaks from happening, but I would assume that they could and should read EVERYONE the riot act and - with the President's consent - tell them they risk being fired.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)called this person, but he does so much talking to the media, you can't rule him out. Just in terms of the foul language used, my first hunches are Biden (agree with you, he seems to have lost his internal filter) and Rice, both known to be profane and often undiplomatic. Because this person refers back to what was happening in 2010, it's doubtful it was either Kerry or Hagel, neither were in the administration then--and it doesn't sound like an insult either one would say. It's hard to imagine why Kerry would want to make his own job harder, anyway. I suppose one could also consider that it was Valerie Jarrett, who for some reason is playing a role (or has played a role in the past) on the Iran deal.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)There is not an international mandate.
Syria is not attacking us. We are attacking Syria (to the extent that we are supplying and training armed opponents).
Our Syria policy is contradictory and incoherent. We want to overthrow Assad, but are unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve that--which would essentially be invading and occupying the country. Adding 5,000 US-trained fighters to the mix--where there are already 100,000 rebels, most of them jihadis--isn't going to make the difference.
And any weakening of the Syrian state only helps ISIS.
We want to bleed Syria until we can force Assad to negotiate his own exit. That's not only cynical; it's like believing in a fairy tale.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)We are plotting to depose a president who has done absolutely, repeating our tried and always failed attempt to improve the situations in Middle east countries through regime change.
It failed for the people in Iraq, Libya and it will fail again to achieve any good for the people on the ground in Syria. But then again, the MIC will win and I think that is all that really matters in Washington.