Cruising for a bruising?

 

Mark Mardell takes a closer look at President Obama's choices

Related Stories

The president has set himself up for another bruising fight with Congress.

He is already going to clash with lawmakers over the debt ceiling and spending. He has signalled he won't dodge a confrontation over guns and immigration. Now, his choice of two new cabinet members will mean a couple of fractious confirmation hearings.

The man he wants as defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, faces a real risk of being given the thumbs down and will certainly get a rough ride.

A decorated Vietnam veteran, he has an aversion to war and a view of Israel that falls short of what many Republicans demand.

Not that Mr Obama's pick for CIA director, John Brennan, will be uncontroversial.

He has been the president's main man on national security since 2008 and is a CIA veteran of 25 years so no-one doubts he knows his way around.

But liberals say he was too close to George W Bush's administration - particularly the faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq war and the torture of terrorist suspects.

But any trouble he has will be minor compared to Mr Hagel.

The former Republican senator is a renegade to many in his own party. He broke with them over the Iraq war. He has been accused of anti-Semitism for saying that: "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here, [Congress]. I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."

He has been reluctant about sanctions on Iran and labelling Hamas a terrorist group. Opponents say he is "anti-Israel".

Supporters say he has not anti-Israel, he just does not slavishly back the current right-wing government's policies.

If that wasn't enough, he is in trouble from the other side for anti-gay comments, for which he has apologised.

Perhaps more significant than all of this, he would be a very reluctant war leader, on record as saying, in 2006, that taking military action against Iran "is not a viable, feasible, responsible option".

In 2002, talking about Iraq, he said: "Many of those who want to rush the country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off. I try to speak for those ghosts of the past a little bit".

There is a lot for antagonistic senators to chew on, in an atmosphere where some are determined to block the president whenever they can.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

Is Obama right over Iraq?

The Obama doctrine says the US will only go to war if its vital interests or those of its allies are threatened, so what does that mean for Iraq?

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
 

Comments 5 of 303

 

Features

  • Peaky Blinders publicity shotBrum do

    Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?


  • Oliver CromwellA brief history

    The 900-year-story behind the creation of a UK parliament


  • Image of Ankor Wat using lidarJungle Atlantis

    How lasers have revealed an ancient city beneath the forest


  • TigerBard taste? Watch

    Are trailer videos on social media spoiling theatre?


  • Tesco signBest before?

    Has Tesco passed its sell-by date, asks Richard Anderson


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.