Where Did Chuck Hagel Go Wrong?

By Paul D. Shinkman

The ousted secretary of defense may not have been the wartime consigliere Obama expected.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s sudden departure from the nation’s top military job has left many puzzled, wondering why a candidate so seemingly in line with the White House’s security goals would leave his position, particularly without a clear replacement lined up.

One thing is certain: The world today is sharply different than in February 2013, when Hagel was sworn in. Russia continues its aggressive actions in and around Ukraine, the Islamic State group – also known as ISIL or ISIS – continues to control vast swathes of land it seized during its summer sweep across Iraq, and China plans to expand its nuclear arsenal.

Perhaps Hagel wasn’t the secretary President Barack Obama wanted after all.

“I can’t figure out what he did to merit being voted off the island,” says Eric Edelman, who until 2009 served as the undersecretary of defense for policy, essentially the No. 3 position at the Pentagon.

“He gave them the strategy and the budget they asked for and wanted,” Edelman says. The White House has planned for a military drawdown after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a reset toward arenewed presence in the Pacific. “I understand there were a few occasions when he may have leaned a little too far forward on his skis with regards to ISIS. But it’s kind of hard to figure out what it is they found lacking in his performance.”

Edelman, now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is among many former defense officials who can’t determine exactly where Hagel misstepped, or who served as the main force behind his retirement. Did he grow tired of an administration some say has become too centralized? Or did the president become impatient with Hagel’s perceived inability to make decisions?

“Hagel does not seem to have argued the Defense Department’s corner particularly loudly and effectively,” says Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. “There are plenty of issues that the president has got to decide, from the future of the defense budget to boots on the ground in Iraq, to lethal aid in Ukraine.

“If Hagel has got a view on those questions, he hasn’t let a lot of people know what it is,” Sestanovich adds. “He wasn’t picked to be a forceful advocate. He was picked to preside over a cabinet department the president was clearly eager to pay less attention to.”

Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration, said Monday that Hagel, his former Senate colleague, had expressed frustration surrounding his relationship with the White House.

“Chuck was frustrated with aspects of the administration’s national security policy and decision-making process,” the Arizona Republican said in a statement. “His predecessors have spoken about the excessive micromanagement they faced from the White House and how that made it more difficult to do their jobs successfully. Chuck’s situation was no different.”

Indeed, others who have held Hagel’s position during Obama’s tenure have been sharply vocal in recent weeks about the supposed micromanagement and a centralization of power in this White House. Instead of clearly stating policy goals and setting expectations, Obama has attempted to narrow decision-making down to his closet circles – or so say Leon Panetta and Bob Gates. Both Hagel predecessors have authored books in the last year criticizing Obama’s leadership.

“Because of that centralization of authority at the White House, there are too few voices that are being heard in terms of the ability to make decisions,” Panetta said while on a panel with Gates at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California this month. “You need to have people who are telling you not only what you got right, but also the mistakes you made so you can fix them.”

“It’s in the increasing interest of the White House to control and manage every aspect of military affairs,” Gates said. “When a president wants highly centralized control of the White House at every degree of micromanagement that I’m describing, that’s not bureaucratic, that’s political.”

Hagel and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also participated in the forum. And in a public statement Monday, Dempsey himself hinted at some of the stresses that may have contributed to Hagel’s retirement after less than two years of service.

“He led the military at a particularly difficult time in our history,” Dempsey said. “He set us on course for many lasting reforms. He challenged us every day to adapt and innovate to changing times.

“Secretary Hagel brought a soldier’s heart to work every day. He cared deeply for our young men and women in uniform, and they had no greater advocate. His insight into the nature of military service was both rare and welcome.”

Hagel is expected to stay in his position until the Senate confirms a successor. Neither he nor Obama has given any indication whom that might be, though pundits and critics have already begun circulating some names, including Michele Flournoy, the former undersecretary of defense for policy and a member of Obama’s transition team; Bob Work, the current deputy secretary of defense; Ashton Carter, the former deputy secretary; Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island; or perhaps even a military wild card such as retired Gens. David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal, though selecting one of them would require lifting restrictions on active-duty troops becoming cabinet members within seven years of doffing the uniform.

But the question remains whether the next secretary will be expected to conform to the White House’s strategy or serve as a creative and strong leader to address the complicated security issues that will no doubt remain through the end of Obama’s presidency. The new secretary’s term could be one of great opportunity to shape policy, or rife with serious headaches from too many constraints.

“It is often the case that presidents fire secretaries of defense without knowing what they want the new person to do,” Sestanovich says. “This is a much murkier case.”

“If I were a candidate for this,” Edelman says, stressing that he is not, “and I were approached on behalf of the president or by the president, I’d want to know that I could actually say what I thought and do what I thought was best for the nation’s defense.”

And Hagel’s departure likely leaves many others within the national security sphere wondering: Is he only the first top leader to go?