DISQUS

I pray that's not the case. That would be a blunder of significant proportions that will come back to haunt the Dems in a very short period of time. If Israel goes after Iran, the neocons will be right back in this without Republican realists to provide cover for the administration.

Mark my words, if Hagel is not in this administration, Republican realists will wait until the Dems to fail on national security.

Ginny,

I've worked in and around DC in the foreign policy community for a little while now. What I have found, and I can give you a couple of examples, is that there is a great deal of common cause between Wilsonians and Neoconservatives. Going back a decade to the interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo...The Republican supporters of those interventions were the neocons that we deal with today.

The main reason for this is ends. Both Wilsonians and Neocons seek to remake the world in America's image. Neocons are more prone to try and use force to achieve these ends whereas Wilsonians are more prone use laws to try and achieve these ends. Both are equally Utopian and equally dangerous.

As for collaboration, I would check out some of the stuff that has been produced by Bruce Jackson and Ron Asmus. Additionally, there was an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks back that was written by a prominent Neoconservative and a Wilsonian arguing that the U.S. shouldn't take itself out of intervention game. It's entitled the Dangers of a Diminished America and you can find it here at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352...

It's not so much that Kerry is directly linked to these people, it's that the Wilsonians will turn to the Neocons to support their interventions. That keeps them in the game and sets them up to move into pole position in a crisis.

What we need is a more restrained U.S. that only intervenes when it's vital national interests are at stake. Hagel provides that in line with what Senator Obama believes. Moreover, Hagel brings with him a different group of Republican realists that are ready to support Senator Obama's foreign policy agenda (as it currently stands).

Ginny,

The thing is that I'm very worried about what the rest of the world wants/expects from an Obama administration. Let's say they get Kerry, I imagine that they will feel that Kerry is going to give in to what they want from the U.S.. The reality is that the rest of the world (especially the European) is going to be rather disappointed when John Kerry tells them that the U.S. wants more troops in Afghanistan, a serious commitment to NATO, and serious sanctions on Iran.

Better to temper their expectations with someone like Hagel that they know is a tough, but fair negotiator...and won't tell them what they want to hear. We don't need a repeat of the Clinton administration that lied to the Europeans for the purposes of making them feel that we were amiable to some of their more unrealistic demands (CTBT for example).

The problem with Hagel at SECDEF, is that he's far less qualified to fill that position. He hasn't been a member of the Armed Services committee so he's not as familiar with the Pentagon bureaucracy as other individuals, like, Richard Danzig. Danzig would be an excellent pick for SECDEF given the respect that he commands in both parties.

That leaves you with a single significant spot to fill...State. As I said before, the last thing that this administration needs is neoconservatives finding their way back into influential positions (either inside or outside of the administration). That's exactly what Kerry will allow to happen especially given how aloof the guy is when it comes to personnel. Judging by the people that supported him in the past--these are individuals that continue to find common cause with neoconservatives on a whole range of foreign policy issues.

I realize that I sound like a broken record here, but keeping the neocons in the game is enormously dangerous...because as soon as the U.S. is attacked, or a crisis develops, they’ll use that opportunity to pressure an Obama administration to do something crazy.

Per Joe Biden’s warning, you aren’t going to be able to sell Obama’s foreign policies if you’ve got the democrats advocating patience and prudence vs. the neocons advocating a punish our enemies mentality in a crisis. That’s where a guy like Hagel comes in. He brings with him a significant cadre of Republican realists which can shore up a bipartisan approach to an international crisis. That's what Obama needs to do immediately if he's to stunt the criticisms that will inevitably follow a withdrawl from Iraq.

I’m very much hoping that Obama (provided he wins) does not make the mistake of bringing Kerry into State. This will be strategically and politically disastrous if he gives these morons (the neocons) another chance.

Kerry would be an absolute disaster at the job. They might as well tap Holbrooke, or some other Wilsonian to give the neocons another opportunity to influence the foreign policy apparatus.

Obama needs to take in a high-profile Republican. Hagel is the best choice to do so. In addition to finding common cause with him on a range of foreign policy issues, he'd also be able to bring with him disaffected Republican realists to solidify support for Obama's foreign agenda. That is the most important objective of the Obama presidency at this point, outflank the neocons by building a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Anything less keeps them in the game, and should there be a terrorist attack or an international crisis, they will possess the opportunity to appeal to the emotional side (rage and fear) of the electorate.