A LOOK AT CHUCK HAGEL AND JOHN BRENNAN : OBAMA'S PENTAGON AND CIA NOMINEES

Chuck Hagel: Nominee, Secretary of Defense

Having Chuck Hagel (age: 66), an Obama confidante, at the head of the Pentagon is intended largely to provide political cover to end combat operations in Afghanistan and to begin to implement deep Pentagon budget cuts.

Hagel is chair of the Atlantic Council and member of Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He was formerly a Republican senator from Nebraska (1997-2009) and head of an investment banking firm. A two-time Purple Heart recipient, he would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense. Hagel is known – and disparaged by many Republicans – for his independence vis-à-vis party orthodoxy on foreign policy issues and for holding views considered to be views outside of the conservative mainstream (ex. opposition to Iraq troop surge). Indeed, the vivid battle over his nomination has already begun among prominent Republicans, neoconservatives, Democrats, and pro-Israeli groups.

Opposition to Hagel is tri-fold. He has encountered major criticism for past statements about the pro-Israel lobby”: “[It] intimidates a lot of people around here. I havealways argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't thinkit's [...] smart for Israel.” He has refused to add his signature to letters circulated around DC by AIPAC. Although Hagel has considerably better relations with other arms of said lobby (J-Street, Israel Policy Forum), and the support of heavyweights like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and most former US ambassadors to Israel, hardliners believe he will antagonize Israel. And to the contrary of the president, Hagel opposes sanctions against Iran, favors negotiations with Hamas and Iran, and has criticized the largesse of America’s defense spending.

Democratic opposition to Hagel centers mainly around a negative remark made about a gay colleague a decade ago. He has since apologized for the comment and has publicly stated his support for openly gay military service.

That Hagel personally knows war and has shown no reserve in expressing his reluctance to go to war may well have an impact abroad (US approach to Iran, willingness to align with Israel’s policies) as well as “at home” (increased attention to returned soldiers).

It is thought that Democrats will ultimately support the President’s choice and that Republicans will find it difficult to confront the potential backlash of opposing a decorated Vietnam War hero. But if Hagel wins a bitter nomination fight, Republicans may consider him weak and show less flexibility in cutting a deal to prevent the sequester from taking effect in late February.

John Brennan: Nominee, Director of CIA

Current Deputy NSA for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and close confidante of Obama, John Brennan (age: 57) is a career CIA agent who has been party to nearly every national security question issue in the Obama administration (including the raid on Bin Laden). Brennan was considered for the job of CIA director in 2008, but withdrew his name for consideration after facing accusations over past public support for “enhanced interrogation techniques” and sending prisoners to countries where torture might occur. Detractors insist that as a high-ranking official inBush’ CIA, Brennan condoned tactics like waterboarding that are considered torturous. In 2009, he condemned such practices.

A primary question elicited by this pick is whether the CIA will maintain, reinforce even, its current place at the heart of counter-terror operations, or if Brennan will usher it back to its traditional espionage capacities.

During his 25 years at the CIA, Brennan exercised a wide variety of functions, including the post of station chief in Saudi Arabia. Following his time in government, Brennan was head of a security consultancy, The Analysis Corporation, as well as chair of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Brennan speaks fluent Arabic.

Related Reading
Obama’s Nominations of Hagel and Brennan Signal Course Adjustments at Pentagon and CIA (WaPo)
Brennan Pick Revives Leaks Dispute (Politico)

Choice to Lead C.I.A. Faces a Changed Agency (NYT)

photo credits: Associated Press

HOW THE SEQUESTER WILL IMPACT THE DEFENSE SECTOR

As 2012 winds to a close, so too does the time remaining for Congressional leaders and the President to reach a bargain on the fiscal cliff.

One of the major concerns is the prospect of $500 billion in automatic cuts to defense spending set to go into effect as part of the sequestration.

After the jump is a batch of links detailing how the sequestration will likely impact the larger defense community (Pentagon-both civil and military, defense industry, and defense lobbyists).

IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS ON US DEFENSE INDUSTRY

In light of the significant reduction in defense spending recently unveiled by President Obama, the question of the real impact of the cuts on the defense industry remains pressing.

Some key reading on the topic:

- The impact of reductions on specific programs; Future investment possibilities, at the Washington Post

- Panetta reassures defense sector; Tension between Pentagon and industry at Reuters

- US defense contractors look to export market to offset domestic reductions; Forecasts for 2012 at Business Week

- Analysis: Defense cuts will not immediately damage US defense industry because major overhaul largely punted to next administration at Defense News

OBAMA AND GATES: (IN)COMPATIBLE IDEAS ABOUT NUCLEAR SECURITY?

Josh Gerstein at Politico published an account of President Obama's and Secretary Gates's contradictory stances over the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama wants significant reductions in pursuit of a zero-nuke world, whereas Gates has long advocated for sufficient investments to modernize US arsenals. For Gates, re-engineering and modifying current stocks is essential to national security - but at a certain point, and in light of the testing moratorium, old weapons eventually become unreliable and need to be refurbished.

Biden's recent speech on the future of America's nuclear security could then be viewed as a nod to Gates - the unprecedented funding of nuclear technology labs would thus be viewed as a compromise between Obama's refusal to incorporate new nuclear weapons into the 2011 budget and Gates's position on the need to have the most up-to-date and sophisticated mastery of the technological landscape. And the huge influx of funding to the Pentagon would certainly cause no offense.

Ultimately, Gates wants to ensure that US security needs are met through the proper upkeep, updating, and judicious development of nuclear weaponry. He said in September 2009: “We have no desire for new capabilities. That's a red herring. [...] This is about modernizing and keeping safe a capability that everyone acknowledges we will have to have for some considerable period into the future.”

Whether or not Gates himself is satisfied with the emerging administration posture, arms control advocates wonder if the proposed 2011 nuclear lab funding increases could lead to building new nuclear weapons down the road. According to Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, "“That’s a very fair concern,” Cirincione said. “People will be taking a very close look at what the posture review says about the Life Extension Program for exactly this reason."

- Amy Greene

NEW MOMENTUM FOR US EXPORT-REGIME CONTROL REFORM?

On January 13, it was reported that Secretary Gates, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, and Acquisitions chief Ash Carter met with Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a top trade lobby comprised of leading defense industry executives (including those of Lockheed and Boeing), to discuss the future of government/industry collaboration.
The meeting comes in the days leading up to the conclusion of the administration's review of export regime controls, commissioned in August 2009 and due for release later this month.

Gates praised the industry for rapidly meeting the Pentagon's needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, including prompt provision of drones and mine-resistant vehicles. He pledged to secure growth in the Defense budget, arguing that the task would be greatly facilitated by an industry that vigilantly cuts costs and delivers provisions on-time.

Gates also threw his full support behind AIA-backed export-regime control reforms. Typically opposed by the Pentagon, Gates' reversal gives new hope to proponents of acquisition and export-control reform. Though he is not the first official to favor the idea - in September 2009, Secretary Clinton and other senior officials (like assistant SecStates Andrew Shapiro and Ellen Tauscher, as well as NSA James Jones) called to remake the notorious ITAR regulations.

The meeting, coupled with the administration's commitment to reshape export controls, raises a few questions:
- How commercially-driven will the White House allow export-regime reform to become?
- How implicated will America's allies be in redrawing the US Munitions list?
- How will the Administration explain any eventual reforms in order to mitigate critics who call the administration weak on national security and seek to damage the White House's credibility in the lead-up to midterm elections?

Also, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to introduce legislation in late January (around the time of the release of the White House strategic review) calling for a Congressional conference that will likely raise the topic of easing restrictions on communications satellite exports.

Prior to its meeting with Gates, the AIA gave President Obama a letter calling for reform on the basis that the current regulations cost US exporters billions in annual sales and weaken defense-related industries that are implicated in the construction and production of new technologies. The list of goods on the US Munitions List is outdated and includes many banal items while excluding far more threatening technologies such as stealth and night vision.

The AIA outlined four key areas for reform, elements to which Gates has now voiced his support:
1. Updating the US Munitions List and commodity jurisdiction
2. More efficient, clearer division of responsibility between government agencies in caseload management
3. Placing decision-making on technology release in the hands of the Defense Department
4. Treatment of drones as a Category I item in the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime

- Amy Greene