Chuck Hagel: America’s new drone czar?
posted at 8:58 pm on January 7, 2013 by Allahpundit
Here’s what I was getting at in the last post about O potentially using Hagel more as a fig leaf for his own hawkish policies than letting Hagel help him to unleash the dove within. To the extent the left still cares about the Bush-ier elements of Obama’s counterterror approach, their chief concern is drone strikes. With good reason: After ranting about “King George” for eight years, the guy they elected to replace him now oversees his very own “kill list” targeting jihadis (including those with American citizenship) in an ever-expanding array of countries with an ever-expanding death toll of civilians as collateral damage. Surely the appointment of Chuck Hagel signals that O’s prepared to retreat from his Hellfire-missile whack-a-mole strategy, right?
Nope. The other side of today’s personnel coin is John Brennan, Obama’s counterterror czar and the de facto head of the drone program, being sent to replace Petraeus at CIA. The drones aren’t going away anytime soon, especially with fewer American boots on the ground in Afghanistan; Obama prefers to wage war in the shadows, just as he prefers to incinerate targets rather than capture them and then cope with the legal headaches of where to house them or whether to render them. So not only is the Hagel appointment unlikely to pay dividends for the left on one of their few remaining counterterror priorities, the guy tasked with overseeing the drone campaign might soon be … Chuck Hagel himself:
Since last April John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, has been the point man making the administration’s legal and moral case for targeted killing (what used to be called assassination). But Brennan has also indicated he doesn’t want the CIA to be in the paramilitary, as opposed to spying, business (at least not all that much). All of which raises an important question: As CIA director will Brennan continue his current role as the administration’s counterterror chief, turning the agency into the president’s personal killing machine? Or will he try to fob off more of the dirty work on the Pentagon?
And if Brennan decides to do the latter, how will Chuck Hagel react? The new nominee to run the Pentagon has long talked about conducting a moral foreign policy “determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power,” as he once put it in a Foreign Affairs article. Hagel has also sought to restrain the use of force so as cause a minimum of “collateral damage”—that is, the accidental killing of innocents – and critics say that is one of the biggest problems with Obama’s dramatically stepped-up drone program…
In an email to National Journal on Monday, a senior administration official said he didn’t “expect any daylight between Brennan and Hagel over counterterrorism policy or operations. They both understand how to go after terrorists effectively, prudently, and within the confines of American law and policy — that’s a hallmark of how both men come at these questions.”
Sounds like the White House either has already gotten Hagel’s thumbs up on drone strikes or else they expect they can get his thumbs up without much difficulty. Or maybe the blather about the Pentagon taking over the drone program is just that — blather, with Brennan to retain control once he’s enthroned at CIA. O’s done a lot of damage to AQ under Brennan’s guidance. Why mess with the formula now?
If confirmed by the Senate to lead the CIA, John Brennan, to paraphrase Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, will be clothed in immense power. He’s already an architect of the CIA’s accelerated counterterrorism campaign, the one that launches drone strikes at suspected terrorists around the world. From his perch at the White House, Brennan has been a major advocate for the CIA, perhaps more effectively than the men running Langley, thanks to his close relationship with Obama…
Intelligence veterans who’ve worked with Brennan don’t expect him to make major changes at Langley. After all, much of the CIA’s focus during the Obama administration has come under Brennan’s somewhat removed watch. Those who want to see the CIA hand over control of the drone program to the U.S. military — a position that the Washington Post reported Brennan was sympathetic to in the White House — may be disappointed.
“It may be that once he’s sitting at CIA and has his hand on the joystick, as it were, he may be reluctant to divest control to the military,” says Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. “There’s little question that both for substantive and political reasons the war on terrorism is still on the front burner, and he’s certainly not going to take his foot off the gas with regard to the war on terrorism.”
That’s the best of both worlds for O. He’ll still have his star quarterback running the drone-strike offense but now he’ll have Chuck Hagel as head cheerleader to reassure the left that everything’s being done conscientiously. Surely he wouldn’t simply tell them what they wanted to hear, right?
One more fun footnote to all this, to illustrate how far we’ve come from the days of progressive high dudgeon over counterterror policy. The whole reason Brennan originally ended up in the White House as O’s counterterror czar rather than as the head of the CIA was because back in 2009 his support for enhanced interrogation made him radioactive to liberals. The avatar of Hopenchange couldn’t very well nominate a man like that; why, the Democratic Senate might even refuse to confirm him. Four years of Democratic rule later, with the left’s interest in this subject having duly and predictably faded, O’s finally going to run him out there for a confirmation hearing with little serious opposition expected. Perfection.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Because “I won”
GWB on May 16, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Smoke and mirrors.
antisocial on May 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM
The State Run Media will still love him in morning…
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 3:12 PM
US Department of 57 States
burrata on May 16, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Well, it’s good to know that, in addition to Holder knowing next to nothing, the stuff he does know is totally wrong.
Dusty on May 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM
I recall all of the many leaks during the Bush years. Leaks that actually damaged national security on many occasions. Not to mention the dubious “leak” of Valery Plame by Armitage that was investigated by a special prosecutor.
I don’t recall on any of those occasions the media’s phone records being subpoenaed. I’m not saying it never happened, I just don’t recall ever hearing about it happening.
This seems like a fairly trivial leak in comparison (a leak about a victory that everyone knew was going to be announced by the WH anyway). In fact, this seems like the kind of routine leaking we see in DC all of the time.
So to claim this requires the subpoenaing of all the AP’s phone records defies credibility. The motive here is clear – to get the press back in line and show them who is boss.
You watch. There will never be any real investigation into who the leaker was and it will all be dropped – despite telling us how important it is to national security that this happen in the first place.
Monkeytoe on May 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM
The Ohio State University
dominigan on May 16, 2013 at 4:02 PM
The answer is simple – The AP used a narrative that did not jive with Team SCOAMT’s assertions that Al Qaeda was dead along with Osama bin Laden. As for the delays, the delay in investigating was because Team SCOAMT needed the AP on board the Presstitute Organ Train until after the election, and the further delay in telling the AP it was being investigated is the Chitcago Way.
Steve Eggleston on May 16, 2013 at 4:07 PM
Had they still called it an Al Qeada plot timed to “commemorate” bin Laden’s killing, you’re damn right they would have still been investigated.
Steve Eggleston on May 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Sheesh, I was saying yesterday that this looked like retaliation for not playing ball and sacrificing a scoop to Obama’s propaganda machine. That is the way Barry and Eric and David roll.
novaculus on May 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM
They were trading hummus recipes?
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM
The timing is interesting… just a few hours before the attack was the meeting with the Turkish Minister.
Makes you wonder what he learned during that meeting.
A suspicious mind might almost start thinking that the entire ‘terrorist attack’ was a hit job: no follow-up to get the obvious terrorists at coffee houses months afterwards, no indictments from the lovely FBI, no reprisals against the group that did it. A very suspicious mind might just think that Amb. Stevens was set-up to be killed for what he knew that the Administration didn’t want getting out.
It is the Chicago Way, after all.
ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM
If all of that is about the AP not giving the WH its moment in the sun to brag… then they really are petty children.
Karmashock on May 16, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Consider that perhaps the story about the leak of this al Qaeda plot justifying this seizure of phone records is a complete lie. It was a convenient justification that they thought no one would question.
It sounds bizarre, but it’s a very simple explanation, and given the mendacity of this administration it’s very believable.
So what were they really looking for with such a broad and deep seizure of records? What was going on in that period of time that the administration wanted so badly to know about?
slickwillie2001 on May 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM
Do we really want to buy the administration’s line that this was about national security and a foiled terror plot? They lied and lied and lied about Benghazi being sparked by a YouTube video, so why would they tell us the truth about this. Look deeper. What information were they really after?
bitsy on May 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM
My vote is Valerie Jarrett. The AP & IRS scandals have her stench all over them.
MississippiMom on May 16, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Rep. Louie Gohmert on the AP scandal, finally someone has said what needs to be said:
When there is a tyrannical despot the media will be one of the early victims
Axion on May 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM
this press really is like a battered wife. they keep going back. currently they are running stories claiming an “angry 0bama fires head of IRS” when its been well known since last nite the guy was leaving next month anyway.
chasdal on May 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM
Does anybody believe a word that Eric Holder says..?
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Wonder if the lsm is worried about what a real investigation would be like if they actually leaked a real serious top two in Holder’s view kinda leak? Since he doesn’t seem to spend a lot of time behind his desk, how would he know if there was a top two in his lifetime kinda leak that had been leaked anyways? Oh, yeah, he could find out by watching CNN.
Kissmygrits on May 16, 2013 at 6:42 PM
The AP was being the lap dogs by holding the story but they got too excited about the story and a victory for there master of a failed plot, that they peed on the lap.
tjexcite on May 16, 2013 at 6:45 PM
Fifty thousand IRS thugs cannot enforce a law that one hundred million people simply refuse to obey….especially if that one hundred million have guns. Apologies to Gandhi or whoever first came up with that.
Oldnuke on May 16, 2013 at 7:36 PM
Lap dogs get eaten first in this Administration.
You don’t have to chase them.
ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 8:45 PM
I was wondering if I was too cynical when I think they really did not care so much about the leaker as they were interested in what conversations they were having with congress people? Glad to see I am not the only one.
KW64 on May 16, 2013 at 8:46 PM
We all know the National Security Card was played to cover the real reason they were tapping the AP. They wanted to know what the AP was investigating. Chavez might have died but his spirit lives on in the man we know as Obama.
James on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM
I’ve decided that from here on I will refer to the AG as Epic Hodor. He is one of the supporting characters in Obama’s #GameOfScandals.
CitizenEgg on May 17, 2013 at 7:00 AM
At the heart of all the emerging ‘scandals’ – IRS targeting specific groups, secret AP phone records, Benghazi cover-up, and who knows what else might come to light – is this:
Obama’s ambition, to win a second term presidency, not on his own merit. Just like his winning the first term, nothing he has done deserves ‘the prize’.
ALL of the scandals (so far) can be traced back to Obama himself.
Sir Napsalot on May 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Seeing those two twits pictured together, I can understand how some could go “racist”.
SpiderMike on May 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM
If I’m the AP, I have my interns call every number at State, Defense, Justice, and CIA twice a day from here on out to provide cover.
goatweed on May 19, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Or is that concealment? Can’t keep them straight.
goatweed on May 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2