Conservative but socially liberal, you get over half of americans saying that is what they are. It does not necessarily mean they really believe them. If you ask most americans, do you want smaller government, they say yes. If you ask them about cutting anything on the budget, they do not want to cut anything. It is not clear if they really believe it. As low as 10 and as high as 30 . Libertarians, if they were conscious and political, could be a big movement. They could have a lot of influence in politics. For various reasons, theyre not organized that we right now. Author Jason Brennan on what you might not know. Tonight it oclock on cspan q a. 8 00 on cspan q a. A discussion on president obamas choice for secretary of defense. This is about an hour and 20 minutes. The military marching in formation. The rehearsal taking place on capitol hill. This in advance of the ceremonies that will get underway in eight days. A mild day in washington, d. C. To buttress to reach the mid 60s. Temperatures to reach the mid60. Mid60s. We want to focus on the nomination of senator chuck hegel to be the next defense secretary. The want to welcome two experts. Terry schmidt and steve clemens. Gary schmidt and Steve Clemons. Did his nomination surprise you . Guest it did not. When you began looking at the transition from leon panetta and asking what kind of person who would have in there, someone who would command competency and stature. He seemed an obvious choice. Host news from the new york times. Pointing out to republicans who called him and appeasers based on what he said in a rock. He voted for the rock were but then turned against that conflict. The word appeasers seems to be pretty strong. Iraq, but then turned aginst that conflict. The word appeaser seems to e pretde pretty strong. Guest the most important thing that happened during the war was the search. He voted against the surge. He called the worst mistake since the vietnam. When youre talking about putting somebody as secretary of defense and has such strong views, and wrong views, that is something that will be asking him. Host were going to share with you some of the statements by senator haggle hagel. Also, a number of speeches he has delivered, to give you a chance to hear senator hagel in his own words. Steve clemons, what does this nomination signal in terms of what the president wants to achieve . Guest two important things. It signals that he once an independent, nononsense voice at the table around the president. Senator hegels had a close relationship with president obama. I happen to know that the quality of conversation, the nature of the conversation is very direct, often not in agreement. The president is not bringing on board a yes, maam. This is about deploying power around the world, managing strategic assets around the world, managing a ship where the president has said very clearly, we have overweighted our resources in the middle east. We have underweighted our presence in asia, dealing and looking at china. That is moving a giant ship of spending, resources. American men and women being moved different places. As we bring down that budget, smart choices need to happen. We have got hopefully the same degree of security deliverable, that is not just a function of money. He had two purple hearts. I think that is very important. This is a man who understands the nature and structure of military organizations. Doppler that is what i think is the issue. Host he talked about that in a 2005 interview. Here is the president as he formally nominated him to be the next defense secretary, replacing leon panetta. [video clip] my friend of reference is geared towards the guy at the bottom who is doing the fighting and the dying. With chuck, our troops will always know, just like sergeant rigell was there for his own brother, secretary hazel will be there for you hagel will be there for you. Host how significant is like going to be in his thinking in terms of what he wants to do for the pentagon . Guest the real question is whether the military he served in is a military today. Is the military today. Institutions are vastly different. Were talking about a volunteer force. A much different course than the one that was in vietnam. A force than one that was in vietnam. That does not give you the type of experience necessarily. Hagel has made quite a few statements. I am not so sure that his experience and is up and being the right guy for secretary of defense. Host these automatic spending cuts, 500 billion over the next decade. What does that portend as to what secretary hagel is going to say over the next year or so . Guest when you are making decisions about spending and technologies and investment, these are decisions that were crafted and sorted out a year ago. To think you can turn on a dime is very hard. The defense department, with a lot of white house guidance, has already been planning for this. It is a big shock to the system. I am one who thinks you can make substantial cuts. If you have that level of spending cuts, it would trade the equivalent of a depression. He has to implement the law. He is going to have to make tough choices and do with the command staff of the pentagon and figure out how to make those as judiciously and protect the skeletal structure of the security capacity. Guest if youre dealing with a 500 billion front and cut, you would be shaving off quite a bit. But senator joe manchin has been out, showing the chart. U. S. Seen the Defense Budget growth over the years. The number of american you have seen the Defense Budget to grow over the years. I suspect the contract and dimensions of this will be hit very hard. Youll be cutting through a lot of muscle to try to keep the bones safe. Guest senator hagel said recently that the pentagon was bloated. He says it has not been a Strategic Review in years. The department of defense is already cut. Theres already been chairman os Martin Dempsey has said that if the sequester goes through are some cuts go through, or some cuts through the pentagon has been thinking about these things for the past four years. Host were taking an indepth look into senator chuck hagel, and were using a lot of material from our video library. A lot of it is available to you as well. All of it is available to you as well. Cspan. Org. From 2006, senator hagel had this to say about the middle east. [video clip] the leaders of these countries and that particular region have failed the people. For their own reasons. Not unlike much of the trouble over the years in africa. It is not americas fault. The leaders themselves of those people and those countries and those regions have failed. Have American Companies taken an advantage . Have there been plundering, abuses . Of course. The responsibility for those regions of the world being held behind the rest on the shoulders of our leaders. As i have just catalog about three different reasons, now you see the manifestation. Cultures have something to do with that. You cannot impose a democracy, no matter how wellintentioned you are, on a region of the world that may be does not want it. Or that does not have history or culture or aptitude to lay down in a democracy and say, now we will fix the problems. It does not happen that way. Culture, tradition, religion, ethnic clans are all part of that. You work with the system. I talked about alliances. That is what alliances are important. You work with in those systems. To influence change, affect change. Theres so many things going on in the world today that are disgusting, despicable, that we hate. Sudan is a good example. We have limitations as to what we can do to change that. We should always be about helping change that, people who want to change it. We have limitations. All powers, all individuals have limitations. Nations must be wise enough to understand ho. Host chuck hagel. Thensenator barack obama and chuck hagel traveling to the middle east. Hagel co talks about the limits of power. Guest one of the conditions that president obama and his team said, a lot of demands and expectations around the world. A lot of challenges. Americas role is to not challenge the foes, but to be dependable for the allies. I think one of the real challenges is when you think strategically. When you had the middle east crisis, you had rising problems with north korea. That is what chuck hagel is talking about. You need to figure out how, given the limitations, it can matter in certain places. That is a realistic assessment. Part of the role of the United States is to go into the interior to redesign and so there are less a threat to the United States. When you have limited power, it makes someone like chuck tickle very skeptical of the ability of the United States to do that chuck hagel very skeptical of the ability of United States to do that. When he traveled with president obama, a think this was part of this discussion. Host what relationship does carry schmidt and senator hagel have . Guest if you look of a first term of the obama administration, there were doubts about his Foreign Policy and. It was natural for him to pick thensenator clinton to be secretary of state. I think in a second term, he is not running for reelection. He is more inclined to pick somebody he is comfortable with. The gun along in the senate, so presumably they will get along in it administrations they got along in the senate, so presumably they will get along in the administration. I think the fundamental reason, senator hagel, he and the president are in lock step. One of the things it should be done in the hearings for the nomination, and the things about American Power and leadership, it is fine to talk about the limits of power. Everyone should understand hard limits to power. I think that issue, that debate can be used fully put on the table when senator hagel is before committees. Host whopper we dig the life and careewe dig into the lr of senator chuck hagel. I want to point out a that is beginning a lot of attention. Quote that has been gettin ga lot og a lot of attention. The jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here, referring to capitol hill. Again, i have argued against some of the dumb things to do because i dont think its in the interest of israel. I just dont think its smart for israel. Guest i have no way of knowing and i doubt that hagel is anti semitic. The most troubling part of that has to do with the fact that he goes on to say, i am u. S. Senator, i am not the senator from israel. The troubling part of that is the subtle suggestion that if you disagree with him about u. S. Policies towards israel and the middle east, there is a loyalty question at stake. I think thats going to be something the senators are going to ask him about. In the washington post, he says, by congressional standards, senator hagel is quite independent of israel. Guest he has always voted in favor of those aid packages. This is a complex and often taboo subject. Karen david miller was a negotiator for Aaron David Miller was a negotiator. People can actually go and listen to the various recordings he did on u. S. , israel issues. We have evolved it is a complicated issue. Many people have tried to discuss it. It is a question of, what are israels interests. Theres a legitimate debate that is more actively had in tel aviv and jerusalem than in washington. General jim jones said that israel right now is confusing its short term versus longterm interests. Todays strategy is like in new orleans levee. Thee protecting israel from storm around it. Eventually if you do not mitigate the storm, it can become substantial. Hagel said, we cannot make a choice between are rock solid relationship with israel, but we have vital relationships with other countries in the neighborhood. And congress, the senate and house, got some Interest Groups want to see is a zero sum game. What some Interest Groups want to see is a zero sum game. That is what he is saying is not constructive. I interviewed the former chief of Naval Operations in israel about his relationship with hagel. He recounted some been very interesting. Something very interesting. There was one in particular that had to do with pressuring russia on jews inside russia. 99 senators signed on to a media platform calling for something. Hagel refused. He had written to president clinton about this exact case, received a letter from clinton, had a commitment from clinton to make certain actions. Hagel was moving privately. Theyre upset he did not sign on to the letter. Because of not banned widening and falling with the tribe, there is the concern of its independence bandwagoning and following the tribe, there is a concern about his independence. Caller he was against the sanctions against iran. If he has been advising as president , no one would say we are winning in afghanistan. Under obama, 80 of the injuries have occurred in afghanistan. Does that sound like we are winning . Guest of me go back for a second. Let me go back for a second. By talking about, i am not the senator from israel, the problem with that is it suggests that those who have strong strategic view is about the u. S. Israel relationship are somehow in the pocket of israelis. I think that is wrong. There are solid, strategic reasons for the relationship. Painting the other side as being on thoughtful about that relationship is wrong. On afghanistan, senator hagel when the iraq war was going poorly, senator hagel said, weve taken our eye off the ball. The greatest threat to United States faces is between the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan. Previouslythese are issues thate addressed. Where does he think afghanistan is going to go . What did he think at this one point that it was such a vital and strategic interest . The president himself tries to address that issue. Senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. It is not simply about israel and the u. S. It is about the statements and the votes that senator hagel been made, sanctions on iran, talking with the dictatorship in syria about not signing a resolution be, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Votes against signaling that the i Iranian Revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. All these things that suggest that his views about the middle east and the palestinianis really conflict, brought together with those israeli conflict, brought together with those other statements. People often say that president s should be given to deference to his appointees. I agree with that. Yes made a lot of statements that have implications for current policy he has made a lot of statements that have implications for current policy that need to be addressed. Host this is from one of our viewers. His panel is, north of boston. Chuck hagel expresses a deep strain of midwestern skepticism and frugality about foreign adventures. He talked about the afghanistan. This for very of last year. Mayor from february of last year. [video clip] this is our 11th year in afghanistan. That reality is washing over a nation possibility to sustain that work. Nations possibility to sustain the war. In the end, it will be the afghanistan people that have to decide what kind of government the want and what they want to do. The other part of this you have not mentioned is pakistan. Pakistan is the most important and critical element in this entire equation. I think at this point, and i think leon panetta and the president , and they are right with the direction that are taking this. Accelerate the combat timeline, which drawn in nato and American Forces out of there and down eventually, because the International Peace conference is probably what is going to be required, and when i say International Peace conference, i think theyre going to have to bring the iranians in. They will have to bring in the taliban, the government of afghanistan, others. I do not know how else you resolve this, and this is going to go on for awhile. This will not be resolved with just one peace treaty, but the continuation of the past we are on now is only going to make it worse. We have a situation in afghanistan where we are right on the cost of losing an ally in a very serious way. We do not want that to happen, because then, we become a loose from all of our diplomatic moorings, and as you say, we still have troops in afghanistan. Iran is on the other side. Iraq is having difficulties. That entire area is so combustible and dangerous right now, so this, again, is an example of how we have to be careful with how we train our way through this and to think strategically and not tactically. Host go most notably, the visit with president karzai last week and the announcement in the u. S. On friday that the u. S. Is essentially speeding up its withdrawal from afghanistan. Guest go i think that is very important because it is freeing up assets, and countries like iran and others are looking at the idea that america will have more capacity and is less tied down. I think that is important. We have to remember there are a couple of factors. One, chuck kate , if confirmed, will follow the president s policy stance. The Senate Confirmation hearings are wonderful exercises. It is just like watching cspan. You can learn so much you do not know. The questions, the doubts that we have will be seen it. They become wonderful case studies and records on the way this should take place. If you see the imbroglio in the area right now, we need to think strategically and not tactically, senator hegel will think about russia. Russia is a patron of syria. We have a lot to deal with when we confront with them. Iran, clearly, syria is a proxy for iran, and israel and being on the border, and turkey, which is an ally of the United States. You want to think about what the right justification is in is before you sent in troops and put them in harms way. That is the way chuck cagla generally approaches these questions and really quite myers, in my view, tough to resolve, but that is the way he thinks, and i respect that calculus. Close to what about syria as well as the sudan . I think he will support the president s plan, certainly our main but not fully arming, and putting other pressure, but i do not think he supports at all injecting u. S. Troops. Nofly zones and the kinds of things that we took on libya, that the libyan model does not apply to syria as it is constru