Staff Reports
Chuck Hagel, former Defense Secretary under Obama and a once-relevant Republican senator, has swapped his usual veil of neutrality for an outright endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential run in 2024. Thus, Hagel adds his name to a list of folks who believe the best way to regain relevance is by throwing in their lot with the current occupants of the White House. However, even in his endorsement, Hagel couldn’t help but toss some shade at the current administration, particularly when discussing the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he deemed a “black mark” on the Biden-Harris legacy.
On a recent episode of CNN News Central, co-host Brianna Keilar nudged Hagel to weigh in on criticisms from former President Donald Trump about the Biden-Harris team’s foreign policy—and oh, does that topic never get old in political conversations! Trump frequently asserts that if he had been in charge, global events would have unfolded far differently. During the exchange, Hagel thought it prudent to downplay Trump’s claims, arguing that the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East were the result of complex circumstances—the kind of “realities and dynamics” that Hagel seems to think are beyond the grasp of mere mortals, particularly the former president.
Fmr. Obama Defense Sec‘y: Afghanistan Withdrawal ‘a Black Mark‘ on Biden-Harris https://t.co/EhB5HLzMOH via @BreitbartNews
— Elena (@helen44767171) September 24, 2024
What is glaringly apparent, however, is the admission that Hagel, like many in Washington, is quick to point fingers yet reluctant to acknowledge that the real mess in Afghanistan wasn’t just about how they left the country but rather that they left at all. The image of chaotic evacuations causing billions in military equipment left behind is not one that’s easily brushed aside—forget about the rhetoric; this is real life. But let’s not hold our breath waiting for Hagel to admit that it was the Democrats’ approach that orchestrated that disaster; rather, he redirects the narrative to an abstract critique of the situation, making it sound like an elaborate game of chess rather than a grave national crisis.
As Hagel attempts to validate his stance, he reflects on the various foreign policy challenges that Trump highlights. He suggests he discerns a certain absurdity in Trump’s statements by throwing the “Putin started this in 2014” card—implying perhaps that the U.S. could not have intervened because, well, that’s just how international politics works. For someone supporting the abandonment of Afghanistan, Hagel seems to have an extraordinary faith in the inevitability of global events. The fact that any attempt to draw a line from Ukraine to past actions in Syria gets discussed while ignoring the many ways Trump engaged with other nations is conveniently swept under the rug.
In Hagel’s worldview, the Middle East has always been a complicated squabble—almost as if he’s implying that chaos is just a part of life. A commentary that might resonate with a select few but will do little to comfort the families affected by the recent tragedies. The classic “Middle East is complicated” excuse ignores the uncomfortable truth that disengagement and mismanagement by the current administration have only aggravated the tempest. If the previous administration is to take the blame for anything, it might be in the inability to continue corrections in foreign dealings that have led to the present turmoil.
Strangely, while Hagel tries to shift the blame and downplay Trump’s assertions, the discussion does reveal that there’s a growing dissatisfaction with how the Biden-Harris administration has navigated recent crises. Maybe, just maybe, the chaos surrounding foreign policy has led to questioning whether Kamala Harris is the right choice for the future. Yet in Hagel’s endorsement, the chorus of elitist commentators will keep singing the tune of “it’s all fine” while the realities on the ground tell a different story. The acquiescence to failure wrapped in political allegiance is perhaps the truest definition of “Beltway logic.”
