Hagel Grilled On Nuclear Positions

Throughout the day, Hagel, 66, asserted his support for a strong nuclear weapons program as he parried questions about a study he co-authored by the advocacy group Global Zero that has advocated for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Global Zero report calls for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and elimination of all nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles.

HAGEL: “Engagement is not appeasement”

Much of the management of the U.S. nuclear stockpile is conducted at Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories in New Mexico. Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, both New Mexico Democrats, said they remained undecided on whether they will vote to support Hagel’s nomination, although through a spokeswoman, Heinrich said Hagel’s stated commitment to maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile was “encouraging.”

Several senators, including Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., asked Hagel whether he supported Global Zero’s contention that the U.S. should dismantle its nuclear arsenal without corresponding cuts by Russia and other nuclear states. Sessions said language in a Global Zero report advocating unilateral disarmament would represent a major shift in the U.S. nuclear posture that made him “uneasy.”

Sessions also said that implementing the recommendations “would create instability rather than confidence, and create uncertainty in the world among our allies and potential adversaries.”

Hagel said the report was simply “illustrative” of how disarmament could happen, not a policy directive. Hagel repeatedly said that he would not support unilateral disarmament and that he values the nation’s nuclear arsenal as a military deterrent.

An Associated Press report this week said President Barack Obama could call for a major reduction in the nation’s nuclear stockpile, which consists of 1,737 deployed strategic warheads, during his second term.

Hagel also said he was committed to keeping America’s nuclear weapons functional.

“This prospective secretary of defense would never do anything in any way or take any action that would minimize or harm or downgrade that reality,” Hagel added.

During the hearing, Hagel pushed back against Republicans who called his views on Israel and Iran extreme. He pointed to Iran and its nuclear ambitions as an example of an urgent national security threat that should be addressed first by attempting to establish dialogue with Iranian rulers, although he said he would not rule out using military force.

“I think we’re always on higher ground in every way — international law, domestic law, people of the world, people of the region to be with us on this — if we have … gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible, peaceful way, rather than going to war,” he said.

He also challenged the notion raised by Inhofe that he favors a policy of appeasement.

“I think engagement is clearly in our interest,” Hagel told Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who denounced the idea of negotiating with a “terrorist state.”

“That’s not negotiation,” Hagel said. “Engagement is not appeasement. Engagement is not surrender.”

Meanwhile, McCain’s position on Hagel could be a significant bellwether for his nomination. The two veterans once had a close relationship during their years in the Senate, but politics and Hagel’s opposition to increased troop numbers in Iraq have driven a wedge between them.

During Thursday’s hearing, McCain repeatedly tried to get Hagel to answer whether he was “right or wrong” when he once called the troop surge a “dangerous foreign policy blunder.”

“I’m not going to give you a yes or no — I think it’s far more complicated than that. … I’ll defer that judgment to history,” Hagel said, adding that he was referring to both the overall Iraq war, as well as the surge, in that comment.

The answer seemed to anger McCain, who was a strong proponent of the surge.

“I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” McCain said.”

The senator added that Hagel’s “refusal” to answer the question would “have an impact” on whether he votes for his nomination.

Israel

Right-leaning, pro-Israel groups have tried to characterize Hagel as wobbly on American support of Israel — a claim Hagel rejected. He said he regretted using the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to pro-Israel groups and retracted his onetime claim that those groups have intimidated Congress into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests, especially with respect to Palestinians and the Middle East.

“I’m sorry, and I regret it,” Hagel said. “On the use of ‘intimidation,’ I should have used ‘influence.’ I think would have been more appropriate.”

Hagel was the lone witness in a packed hearing room at a session that could be crucial in determining whether he will win Senate confirmation and join Obama’s second-term national security team. He spoke forcefully for a strong military while trying to explain 12 years of Senate votes and numerous statements.

“No one individual vote, no one individual quote or no one individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record,” Hagel said in his opening statement.

“My overall worldview has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world, that we must lead the international community to confront threats and challenges together, and that we must use all tools of American power to protect our citizens and our interests.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
— This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal