sign in sign up
<<
Home , Atlantic Council, Chuck Hagel

CHARLES “CHUCK” HAGEL SENATOR FROM , 1997 — 2009 An Interview by Heather Vaughan

huck Hagel is a distinguished professor at and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. CHe is co-chairman of the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board; chairman of the ; a member of the secretary of defense’s Defense Policy Board and the secretary of energy’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; and is a member of the Public Broadcasting Service’s board of directors. He also serves on the board of directors of ; the advisory boards of Americas, Corsair Capital, and M.I.C. Industries; is a director of the Zurich Holding Company of America; and is a senior adviser to McCarthy Capital Corporation. Hagel served two terms in the (1997-2009) representing the State of Nebraska. He was a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and Intelligence Committees. Senator Hagel is a combat Vietnam and a former deputy administrator of the Administration. Senator Hagel is the author of the recently published America: Our Next Chapter.

GPPR: !e impetus and overarching theme of the Georgetown Public Policy Review this year is the state of national security ten years a"er September 11th. Let’s begin by getting your thoughts on that. Do you believe we’re safer today? What have we done to improve national security in that time? : The United States of America is safer and more secure today than it was on September 11, 2011. That is because the Congress, the president, America’s citizens, and all our institutions recognized the threat that faced our country in 2001 and the threat of more sophisticated terrorist acts in the future. The Congress and the president worked together to do a number of things.

GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW | 1 First, we consolidated our intelligence resources, and people. agencies the 15 independent agencies. – The third area we must assess ourselves That consolidation is still being on is the military. We’re better off implemented, but what that has done and more secure today because the and will continue to do is bring more military has been reshaped, although cohesive and coherent information not to where it needs to be. [Secretary sharing to the overall intelligence of Defense Robert] Gates has talked framework. It also brought intelligence about it; [former Secretary of Defense into a real-time dynamic that we Donald] Rumsfeld talked about it; all didn’t always have previously. So our our commanders talk about it: we need people on the ground, our military, to transform our military to be better our decision makers, and in particular, prepared for these 21st century threats the president and his national security and challenges. And we’re still working people are getting the maximum on that, but the military has made amount of relevant, timely intelligence astounding progress. It’s more agile for big decisions. So the intelligence and more flexible, with capabilities that agencies coming together in a more we didn’t have ten years ago to address coherent sharing way was a big part big issues before they get to be bigger of the last ten years, and we’re still not issues. finished. Fourth, our institutions and our Second, we consolidated 22 communities have adapted – departments and agencies under meaning not just police forces and one new Department of Homeland state governments, but businesses, Security. Now that’s still being worked NGOs, and educational institutions. out – there are a lot of management Over the last ten years all of these issues. We rolled up 22 departments organizations have started to address into one, and there are different security challenges. Universities are a cultures, different backgrounds, and good example – Georgetown is a very different objectives. But even with good example. Ten years ago – and the difficulties and adjustments we’re I suspect this is the case with most working through, in the end I think it universities – you didn’t have the same was the right thing to do. It brought kind of emphasis on security issues. a more strategic emphasis to using You didn’t have centers dedicated to our resources to the 21st century studying these issues. You didn’t have threats that face our country. Until people coming in to build programs on that consolidation, there was really no security. They were usually an adjunct central homeland security office. You to some other department. That’s had different pieces, but this really a huge part of this because you’re consolidates it in a way where it’s not developing the next set of leaders. Their only manageable, but more to the cultural take on security and their early point, it utilizes and gets maximum absorption into it gives a whole new return from all of these agencies, dimension to the next set of leaders

2 | HAGEL that will govern our country. That one of four Republicans that put a hold wasn’t the case 20 years ago. on the Reauthorization [in 2005]. It’s not that we four Republicans The last reason I believe we’re better or any of the Democrats were any off is the collaboration with our allies. less committed to the security of this Alliances are critically important today. country, but as I have often said, don’t Look around the world – every issue, ever give up one freedom in a tradeoff whether it’s Libya, , or for security. requires alliances and cooperation. And that really begins with developing First of all, I think it’s a false premise. seamless networks of information We have done pretty well in America and intelligence that we gather and for 250 years without giving up share with our allies. The point is liberties and still we have kept our to stop a terrorist attack before it’s nation as secure as any on Earth. In perpetrated. The only way you can fact, we’ve added to our rights with do this is with intelligence. And you our Constitutional amendments. cannot do it without the cooperation Ninety-six years ago, women could of the countries and regions where not vote in America. When we set up these terrorists are bred. is this grand republic, unless you were a a good example. And I know a lot of white male landowner, you didn’t have people are not happy with Pakistan, that right. They said nice things in but we’ve got to have their cooperation. the Constitution about all men being Wherever you go, it’s those intelligence created equal, but that’s not the way it relationships that make the difference. worked in reality. So we self-corrected and changed a lot of the things that So I think those are the five factors needed changing. So what does that are really important to think about have to do with rights and terrorism? when you’re reviewing what we’ve You don’t need to give up rights as a done in the last ten years. All of these tradeoff for security. It never works achievements are imperfect, all need out anyway. And rarely do you have a more work, but nonetheless I think situation where people give rights up that’s an important outline of items and they ever get them back. that have been accomplished. This was a big debate between the GPPR: Is there a con#ict between Bush and the Congress. improving our security and President Bush felt that as commander maintaining our liberties? in chief, he could make all the decisions Have we sacri$ced freedom to about what was or was not important improve our safety? for protecting our country. So we had Chuck Hagel: That is very big issue some pretty interesting exchanges with that I don’t think the American people the Bush White House on these issues. nor the Congress in the past ten years But I think early on Congress abdicated have paid enough attention to. I was much of its responsibility on these issues. I think history is not going to be

GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW | 3 kind to either the Bush Administration into privacy issues, you hear, “Well, if or Congress on these issues. I don’t you don’t have anything to hide, why think Congress did their job of asking would you mind having your phone the tough questions on how we got calls monitored, or your emails, or into these wars, and why, and how long your web browsing, or your bank we were going to be there. Some of account? You’re a law-abiding citizen, us did ask questions, but they weren’t aren’t you? Do you have something to answered. Now ten years later we have hide?” This is the slow encroachment. more troops in Afghanistan than we It starts with that, but it can turn into ever did, we’re spending more money the government saying, “Well, we and we have more casualties. And we need to know something about your still don’t know how to get out of Iraq friends.” You give up more and more. after eight years. We’re skirting with Some people ridicule that. They say the this situation in Libya. Point being: atrocities that happened with dictators question the government. Question in the past can’t happen again because the policies. Question why society is we have mass media now. We wouldn’t being asked to give up a right. Question let it get that far. But the insidiousness whether monitoring phone calls or of slow encroachment is what you bank accounts really keeps us safer. have to watch. That’s why we must Let’s be careful there, let’s take a look. debate these issues in Congress. Let Those are issues that are still playing it be transparent. Let the American out. public know what’s going on. That’s the strength of democracy: an informed public. Then if your representatives I don’t think Congress did their job of and the president agree that it should asking the tough questions on how we be done, it’s done in the open. I’ve got into these wars, and why, and how always had great confidence in our long we were going to be there. country that if nothing else, we tend to get that right. But that doesn’t mean that can’t be taken away if we’re not careful. GPPR: I want to push you a little further on that. It’s rare that we’re GPPR: In your book, you mention asked outright to give up a right. But the economy as a critical factor in our there are small encroachments on our national security. You also discuss freedoms; for instance, on our right how economic inequalities help to privacy. We accept it as common contribute to the growth of terrorism. practice to share information with How are those issues related? the government today that twenty Without economic freedom, people years ago we might have balked at as do not have choices or independence. intrusive. Every specific freedom that is noted Chuck Hagel: I think that this is a in our Constitution and Bill of Rights vital question. When you start getting would fall apart without economic

4 | HAGEL freedom. Every other freedom will you need to utilize all of your foreign atrophy before the basic necessities of policy tools to do that, and I’m not sure life. over the years we’ve done a very good job of that. Many of these countries have not been the recipients of the great For instance, take our association with advancements since World War II that [recently deposed Egyptian President most of the western world has enjoyed. Hosni] Mubarak for the past 30 years. We’ve benefited from economic He was important because he fulfilled prosperity, science, technology, and all the terms of the bilateral Israeli-Egypt these great new revelations in medicine peace treaty. He essentially kept that and health care. When we examine area stable. had a reliable partner, these trouble spots around the world, and we had a reliable partner in the we ask why are some of these people Suez Canal. He was involved in a lot of captive to dictators and terrorists our vital interests. But that came at a like Bin Laden? There’s a religious price. He was a tyrant – a dictator. But fervor in this which drives some of we tried to sugarcoat it by saying he this. But when people have no hope, had elections. Come on. Those weren’t when they’re chained to a cycle of free and fair elections. despair, when they lack water and basic So there are tradeoffs in this business necessities that prosperous countries and it’s always imperfect, it’s always take for granted, something is going to difficult, and there’s always a great happen. I don’t blame all terrorism on hypocrisy zone in this. We’re for values, poverty, but when you combine all of we’re for standards, we’re for freedom, those dynamics into one region, that is we’re for democracy, but we also have about as combustible a dynamic as you a vital interest to keep the Suez Canal can get. Anything can set that off. open to transport 40 percent of the We’ve seen a lot of that in the last 90 world’s oil. How do you balance that? days in and the Middle Back to your point, it’s vitally East. Every country is different and important that we factor in all our every situation is different, but very instruments of power as we take little good comes out of those big positions in this part of the world that reservoirs of poverty and hopelessness. are vulnerable to terrorism. You’ve got They’re easy prey for people who will to figure out what the cause of this distort God and religious fervor. When or you never can fix it. We’re seen as people are in a position where they oppressors and occupiers in Iraq and have nothing, where they have no hope, Afghanistan. The American people they’re going to reach for something. are shocked by that; how can that be? So my point has always been: when We’ve lost 6,000 Americans, tens of you’re looking at terrorism, you have to thousands have been wounded, all go beneath it. You have to look at the because we’re trying to help them. Yes, causes. Yes, you’ve got to stop it, but but we didn’t assess this very carefully

GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW | 5 because these are worlds that are so dynamics at play for us to control. I different from ours. That doesn’t mean told Secretary Gates the other day, it we shouldn’t be involved, but we have seems to me if there was ever a clear to understand it better. And we can’t early 21st century case of the limitations fix it all. of American power, it is our situation in Libya. And you can extrapolate from This is part of the debate on Libya this situation in Libya across that entire – why get involved in Libya and not area. After ten years in Afghanistan Sudan or the Ivory Coast? Their people and eight years in Iraq, we still haven’t are being massacred by their tyrants. done whatever we were supposed to do. Actually, there has not been a massacre Great powers really do have limitations. in Libya. [President of the Council We are very limited in what we can do on Foreign Relations] Richard Haass in Libya. testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two days ago One option being put forth by Lindsay and said that the whole premise of Graham, John McCain and Joe Gadhafi going east and massacring his Lieberman is that we ought to go into people was flawed.1 There was never Tripoli, put boots on the ground, and any evidence of that. Some of the go after Gadhafi. That’s one option. I president’s people said it might happen don’t agree with it, though, because and so we can’t let that happen. what will that get us? Ten years in another war? As said, it’s But we have to do a better job of the Pottery Barn rule you break it, how we are seen as well – reversing : you own it. We broke Iraq so we own the optics. We have to consider how it. Now people say, “We can’t just leave we’re viewed by this next generation them.” Well, why didn’t we think about of citizens in this region. They are that? Why didn’t someone answer some combustible because 60 to 70 percent of these questions about who is going of these countries are under the age to govern, how they will govern, what of 20. Where are they headed? What it will cost the U.S., how long are we are they going to do? They have no going to be there, and what coalitions education and no prospects. We’re only are going to come together? Now we’re at the beginning of these problems. living it. GPPR: One of your criticisms of the We can’t go around the world and war in Iraq was that we didn’t have dictate and interfere and say we don’t our goals laid out at the outset. With like a certain leader like [Libyan Libya, it seems like we’re seeing that ruler Moammar] Gadhafi. Someone problem again. How do we de$ne will have to come into power after success in Libya? Are we in a position Gadhafi. Look at Iraq and [Prime to meet with success? Minister Nouri] Maliki (sic). We may Chuck Hagel: We can’t view this as a end up with another dictator there. question of win or lose. There are too Someone will replace Gadhafi, but many cultural, ethnic, and religious there’s a vacuum. There’s a vacuum in

6 | HAGEL Egypt and Tunisia too, but those were obviously why we’re not arming them. different. Those were revolutions that We know that there are unsavory were inspired by young people and characters that want to take Gadhafi driven by technology. It wasn’t anti- down. These are good examples about American or anti-Israeli. how you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. This goes back to my point We have very limited options on what about limitations – we’re very limited we can do. Secretary Gates said to in what we can actually do there. And Congress three weeks ago, there’s a this also goes back to my point about lot of loose talk about taking out air alliances. There’s not a situation in defense systems. Let me explain what the , North Africa, Central that means. It means going to war. It Asia, or that entire arc that is going to means attacking another country. It’s be resolved without enough members complicated, it means resources – he of an alliance coming together to work went through the whole thing. What these things through. do you want to accomplish with that? Now we’re all befuddled. President Obama said Gadhafi must go. Is that our policy? Regime change? Well then, In , there is rarely a what are we going to do to fulfill our situation where you have good options. policy of no boots on the ground? Now You’re normally faced with bad options. the rebels are upset with us and with But we have to make a decision – we’re NATO because we’re not doing enough. the most sophisticated, powerful nation This is all part of the complications in the world. and limitations. In my opinion, Libya was a mistake. The first mistake we made was the president saying Gadhafi has to go. When the president of GPPR: It seems to me that President the United States speaks, it echoes Obama is trying to avoid following around the world. So what happens if in his predecessor’s footsteps by not Gadhafi stays? Do we lose face? Have committing to troops on the ground we disappointed people saying that the and by not committing to nation- U.S. and NATO didn’t fulfill what we building. Can you still engage in said we would do? another country if you don’t want to The same questions I asked about Iraq commit to these things? Do you see and Afghanistan, you have to ask these. this so-called “” as an appropriate framework for making I don’t know about Libya. You always decision on foreign policy? have to be hopeful. In Libya, the rebels, Chuck Hagel: In America, we have a we really don’t know who they are. We problem because the media and our do have intelligence that says there is political dialogue demand a one- a combination of a lot of dangerous sentence articulation of everything. elements in that crowd, which is On the Sunday morning talk shows

GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW | 7 you have to give a five-second answer You can have principles and you to a very complicated question. That’s can work within a framework of what we demand. So we get ourselves those principles. You balance your in trouble. It’s more complicated than interests, your values, and so on. We that. In foreign policy, there is rarely got in trouble in Iraq when we tried a situation where you have good to explain why we were there – we hit options. You’re normally faced with on democracy. Democracy is not the bad options. But we have to make a answer for everything. Take Gaza, for decision – we’re the most sophisticated, instance. We knew was going to powerful nation in the world. People win the elections there. But when they look to us to lead. It doesn’t mean that did, America – the great champion of we always have to have the answer. We democracy – refused to acknowledge shouldn’t always try to be the one with their government, even though the the absolute answer on everything. United Nations and outside observers There is no answer many times, and said it was a free and fair election. certainly no good options in most Democracy has not fixed the problem cases. there. So what you do is try to weigh your Generally some form of democracy own sovereign vital interests with works best because, if nothing else, alliance interest and with longer-term democracy is about individual regional interests. And you weigh these rights. But it doesn’t fit the same way with who we are as Americans – what everywhere; therefore, I don’t think are our values? Our principles? Our you can come up with a general standards? Do we stand for individual foreign policy that fits all cases. In the liberty? Do we stand for democracy? past, we had the Monroe Doctrine Well, we say we do, but you have to and the Eisenhower Doctrine, but balance those and you have to make every one of those doctrines was some choices and some adjustments at a time when the world was less and make some imperfect systems complicated. There was no mass media, work. no telecommunications, no weapons of mass destruction, no extremist I don’t know about an “Obama movements. These are new realities Doctrine.” I think in the complicated, that make the world so much more interrelated, and combustible world we complicated now. live in today it’s hard to have a doctrine. Even within North Africa and the If you look at the demographics of Middle East, each situation is different, the world, you can see where the each country is different, and each problems are going to be. In the next 25 dynamic is different. So how do you years, what do we do with all of these frame a foreign policy that’s consistent young people? The Wall Street Journal and applies to every situation? You recently ran an article that said that for can’t do it. every 100 bright young Indians with college degrees, only about three are

8 | HAGEL employable. is going to be the maintain what we feel is important most populous country in the world for a competitive position in the in 25 years. And you keep rotating world, then we’re going to have a huge those young, smart people out with problem that we’ll never recover from. educations and expectations and there’s We’re going to have issues that we’ll be nothing there for them. And this is the dealing with for the foreseeable future higher strata of societies! – North Korea, , the Middle East, GPPR: You mention rising – these are all areas that populations and corresponding aren’t going to get fixed right away. unemployment in India as one future They’re going to be with us for a long challenge that needs to be addressed. time. So we have got to be smart in What are some of the other challenges how we utilize all of our instruments you see facing the U.S. in the next few of power. We have many instruments decades? of power, starting with the strength of our economy. We also have diplomacy, Chuck Hagel: Well, I go back to where trade, intelligence, military, and I started: the economy. We’ve got to relationships. How we use those will ensure that our system remains the determine America’s future. most flexible, innovative, competitive economy in the world. But there are so many challenges – starting with $14.5 ENDNOTES trillion in debt. We have long term entitlement programs we’re obligated 1 In testimony before the Senate Foreign to that we can’t sustain. That’s going Relations Committee on April 6, 2011, Haass, president of the Council on Foreign to cut into our base of opportunity, Relations, said, “It is not clear that a but it will also cut into funding humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in our discretionary requirements: the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. There defense, foreign policy, education, had been no reports of large scale massacres up to that point, and Libyan society (unlike infrastructure, and agriculture. They’ll Rwanda, to cite the obvious influential all be limited. That affects our young precedent) is not divided along a single or people, our job opportunities, and our defining fault line. Gaddafi saw the rebels as enemies for political reasons, not for position in the world. The economy has their ethnic or tribal associations. To be to be as big a part of foreign policy as sure, civilians would have been killed in an anything else. President Obama asked assault on the city – civil wars are by their four of us to write him a memo and nature violent and destructive – but there is no evidence of which I am aware that tell him where each of us thought his civilians per se would have been targeted on foreign policy priorities should be. I a large scale.” started with the economy and trade, because everything comes from that – everything flows from that. If you don’t have any money, you don’t have many options. If we don’t have the capacity as a nation to protect our interests and

GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW | 9