I don't often watch TV news. Today, however, I caught clips of the Senate confirmation hearings starring Chuck Hagel in the role of the nominee for Secretary of Defense. A couple hours later I watched a live webcast of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's farewell address. The two events served very different purposes, and yet both addressed a very similar topic; one that is causing politicians and citizens alike to fight, worry, and even do a little math. The topic is that of America's role in the world today and in the future. Not only do we all disagree on what that role should be, we worry given sequestration and debt whether we will even have the resources to implement a cohesive doctrine.
Hagel was grilled on specifics (notably his position on the surge in Iraq), but Republican objections are more broadly about Hagel's view of war, allies, and enemies. Dissenters worry that he is too much of a dove for what should be a golden hawk pedestal. The debate pressed the issue of how America should express its military might in halting the actions of enemies (Iran, Syria, etc.) and supporting the interests of its allies (Israel). Many believe Hagel does not show adequate commitment to our allies, strength to our enemies, and willingness to use force. Others, including myself, would be more than comfortable with a Secretary of Defense who is reluctant to engage in needless war and sees nuance between being a friend and being a yes-man.
Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton spoke on the subject of American leadership in the world. She remains steadfast in the belief that America is the "indispensable nation" but while we will continue to lead, we must do so in different ways. Clinton spoke of the various levers of power. She urged us to get creative and make sure that we are pulling the right levers given the change occurring in the world. After ensuring basic security, addressing the realities (and potential) of climate politics, economic injustices, the rights of women and girls, making a case for our values (as we did so well in the Cold War), and insisting on adherence to a common set of rules are all leading points on America's global agenda. Our work is cut out for us. We will have to use a combination of hard and soft power (read "smart power") to address the many challenges of tomorrow. It can, however, be done and done in a way that promotes our interests and those of our allies, both old and new.
Whispers of decline, claims of heresy, and accusations of incompetence abound. To those yelling in Congress about how we can't afford to revisit the role of the military, that we mustn't encourage regional actors to take leading roles in foreign conflicts, and that we must never engage with our enemies or critique our friends, I say that as the times change so should we. We're not going anywhere; we can relax about that. We, as ever, have the potential to be the world's leading force for peace and progress. If I were to extrapolate and think of one point that Hagel and Clinton would both like to communicate, it's that as we grow older we should allow ourselves the confidence and the latitude to grow a little wiser too.
Hagel was grilled on specifics (notably his position on the surge in Iraq), but Republican objections are more broadly about Hagel's view of war, allies, and enemies. Dissenters worry that he is too much of a dove for what should be a golden hawk pedestal. The debate pressed the issue of how America should express its military might in halting the actions of enemies (Iran, Syria, etc.) and supporting the interests of its allies (Israel). Many believe Hagel does not show adequate commitment to our allies, strength to our enemies, and willingness to use force. Others, including myself, would be more than comfortable with a Secretary of Defense who is reluctant to engage in needless war and sees nuance between being a friend and being a yes-man.
Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton spoke on the subject of American leadership in the world. She remains steadfast in the belief that America is the "indispensable nation" but while we will continue to lead, we must do so in different ways. Clinton spoke of the various levers of power. She urged us to get creative and make sure that we are pulling the right levers given the change occurring in the world. After ensuring basic security, addressing the realities (and potential) of climate politics, economic injustices, the rights of women and girls, making a case for our values (as we did so well in the Cold War), and insisting on adherence to a common set of rules are all leading points on America's global agenda. Our work is cut out for us. We will have to use a combination of hard and soft power (read "smart power") to address the many challenges of tomorrow. It can, however, be done and done in a way that promotes our interests and those of our allies, both old and new.
Whispers of decline, claims of heresy, and accusations of incompetence abound. To those yelling in Congress about how we can't afford to revisit the role of the military, that we mustn't encourage regional actors to take leading roles in foreign conflicts, and that we must never engage with our enemies or critique our friends, I say that as the times change so should we. We're not going anywhere; we can relax about that. We, as ever, have the potential to be the world's leading force for peace and progress. If I were to extrapolate and think of one point that Hagel and Clinton would both like to communicate, it's that as we grow older we should allow ourselves the confidence and the latitude to grow a little wiser too.
No comments:
Post a Comment