Is Chuck Hagel Smart Enough to Run the Pentagon?


As I see it, the next secretary of defense will be faced with—among other things—the following big-think policy challenges:

  • Figuring out the long term size and scope of the defense budget in light of the fiscal situation at home and the nature of American military commitments abroad—especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • Figuring out the configuration of American force structure.
  • Figuring out the configuration of American force doctrine. Are we going to go small? Are we going to go small but continue to augment our counterinsurgency capabilities in the process? Are we going to go bigger?
  • Figuring out how the military will play with intelligence agencies like the CIA, the DIA and the NSA, as well as what the size and scope of the Pentagon’s intelligence structure is going to be.
  • Figuring out what steps it wants to take when it comes to the issue of defense transformation.
  • Figuring out what its long term doctrine is going to be regarding the use of drones in warfare.
  • Figuring out how best to run military tribunals, how best to administer indefinite detention, and what to finally do about the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.
  • Trying to convince regional powers that are allies of the United States to take a greater role in their own defense.

I am sure that I am missing various other agenda items, but I figure that ticking off eight big ones will suffice for the moment. To state the incredibly obvious, most—if not all—of these agenda items cannot be kicked down the road by the next Defense Secretary. They are going to have to be addressed quickly and comprehensively. And all of this means that the next Pentagon chief has to be very smart and very intellectually steeped in defense/national security policy. We need a deep thinker with excellent management skills to run the Pentagon.

I write the above as a prelude to linking to this column, in which David Ignatius rightly wonders whether Chuck Hagel really is all that and a bag of chips:

The harder puzzle for the White House is whether Hagel would be the best manager during an important inflection point in Pentagon history. The U.S. combat role in Afghanistan will be ending, and the services will be fighting over how to divide a shrinking budget.

Hagel brings some obvious pluses on both counts: As a Republican and a genuine military hero when he served as an enlisted man in Vietnam, he can give President Obama cover as he executes the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Hagel is angry about what he sees as the misconceived wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as perhaps only a combat veteran can be. If he had his way, the troops probably would have come home yesterday. But this impatience is also slightly worrying. The withdrawal will succeed only if our military leaves an Afghanistan that can hold together.

Hagel’s military record is surely one big reason why the president wants him. He’s a guy who, as Reed says, knows how to talk to the troops and has walked in their boots. He’s blunt, direct and impatient with pettifogging. In these traits, he’s similar to the current secretary, Leon Panetta, and his predecessor, Bob Gates. And like both of them, Hagel has a temper.

Gates was the most successful defense secretary in modern times, for reasons worth considering now. He understood how to manage the Pentagon and did it not by getting down in the weeds but by staying above them. He delegated the busywork to Pentagon bureaucrats and made the big decisions himself. He was effective partly because people were scared of him. They knew that if they crossed the secretary, they would get fired. This brought a rare accountability.

Hagel could do the tough, no-nonsense-boss part of the job. But Gates had another essential talent that will be harder to match. He was a genuine national-security intellectual, who had studied how to manage and motivate huge institutions when he was director of the CIA and at the National Security Council. He knew the big strategic things about defense policy, but he also knew the little technical things. Gates was such a sawed-off shotgun of a guy that it was easy to miss that he was also a subtle thinker.

Nobody who knows Hagel would describe him as a defense intellectual. He’s more blunt than nuanced. How would he steer Pentagon procurement decisions in this age of new technologies and strategic matrices? I’m not sure. How would he manage the chiefs in their knife fights over the budget? Again, I’m not sure.

Well, we need to be sure. Demanding serious and detailed answers of Hagel regarding these issues is not some neocon/Greater Israel/Jewish lobby/AIPAC machination designed to serve the interests of people Andrew Sullivan and Stephen Walt hate with a Gollumesque passion. If Hagel can give serious and detailed answers regarding these and other issues, I will be favorably impressed and I will write as much. If not, he has no business whatsoever being the next Secretary of Defense.

Members have made 10 comments.

  1. Profile photo of David Williamson Member

    Bring back Donald Rumsfeld – the last competent Secretary of Defense.

    He might characterize Mr Hagel as a known unknown.

    • #1
    • December 20, 2012 at 4:37 am
    • Like0 likes
  2. Profile photo of Mimi Inactive

    Chuck Whogel? Where’s he been? What’s he been doing these last 4 – 6 years?

    • #2
    • December 20, 2012 at 6:31 am
    • Like0 likes
  3. Profile photo of Nick Stuart Inactive

    The key phrase seems to be “he can give President Obama cover”

    Does anything else matter to the president?

    • #3
    • December 20, 2012 at 7:05 am
    • Like0 likes
  4. Profile photo of iWe Reagan

    Wrong question.

    It does not take brains to reform the Pentagon. It takes a street fighter who is able to run rings around the kind of “Yes, Minister” objections set up by the career bureaucrats. And those kinds of street fighters are VERY few and far between in politics.

    The Pentagon needs fundamental reforms (look at the price of the processes, leading to single fighter planes costing hundreds of millions of dollars). If Rumsfeld failed absymally (and he did), then I cannot think of anyone in public service who could get it fixed.

    • #4
    • December 20, 2012 at 7:59 am
    • Like0 likes
  5. Profile photo of Eeyore Member

    “…these agenda items cannot be kicked down the road by the next defense secretary”

    Pej, I’m not making light, but that’s coffee-thru-the-nose snortworthy (I guess it’s more shocked surprise)

    This is the Obama Administration. Without pushback, Guantanamo would already be shut down and current and future terrorists would all be in Thompson, Illinois, each with their own Fed-paid team of National Lawyers Guild attorneys. 

    Decisions on force structure (actually most all decisions) would be made based on how they make us look (or rather Obama’s perception of how we should look). Big-think policies under the guiding influence of a small-think anti-colonialist.

    Something as “small” as Benghazi (I know, State) is being kicked around as to get covered with so much dust that it’s details are unrecognizable.

    I guess what I’m saying (not knowing Hagel) – now that Obama has more “flexibility” – the bigger and more important question is how is DoD going to play with the CinC? And how does Hagel fit in that picture?

    • #5
    • December 20, 2012 at 8:03 am
    • Like0 likes
  6. Profile photo of iWe Reagan

    Pejman – The wrong assumptions guarantees a failed result.

    You seem to want a philosopher king in charge of the Pentagon. I, for one, am sick of philosopher kings.

    • #6
    • December 20, 2012 at 8:04 am
    • Like0 likes
  7. Profile photo of Duane Oyen Member

    The short answer, speaking personally as one who has spent a lot of time in the Pentagon, is NO.

    • #7
    • December 21, 2012 at 2:45 am
    • Like0 likes
  8. Profile photo of jetstream Inactive

    Hagel would be a disaster as Secretary of Defense. In 4 years the Obama/Hagel legacy will be a hollow military, abandoned allies and Iran with nuclear weapons.

    • #8
    • December 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm
    • Like0 likes
  9. Profile photo of iWe Reagan
    Pejman Yousefzadeh: I don’t need a philosopher king in charge. I need a smart guy who is well versed in national security issues in charge.

    I think you continue to miss the point.

    The Pentagon will run on autopilot, as it has done for decades. It will resist the changes that it MUST undergo, until such time that a reformer manages to blast apart and remake the culture of process and bureaucracy that ensures that nobody is responsible when a single airplane costs hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. That is a tall order, and may never happen.

    Without that reformer, everyone who runs Defense will be much of a muchness.

    It simply does not matter to the Pentagon, or the nation, whether Hagel is a genius or a doof.

    • #9
    • December 24, 2012 at 7:36 am
    • Like0 likes
  10. Profile photo of Pejman Yousefzadeh Inactive
    Pejman Yousefzadeh Post author

    I don’t need a philosopher king in charge. I need a smart guy who is well versed in national security issues in charge.

    iWc: Pejman – The wrong assumptions guarantees a failed result.

    You seem to want a philosopher king in charge of the Pentagon. I, for one, am sick of philosopher kings. · December 20, 2012 at 7:04am

    • #10
    • December 24, 2012 at 11:50 am
    • Like0 likes