Posted By Kevin Baron

Chuck Hagel's nomination to be the next secretary of defense cleared the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday afternoon, but only after an hours-long hearing in which conservatives over and over objected to Hagel's views on Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, and how much income he has disclosed.

The straight party-line vote of 14-11 sets up a contentious showdown on the Senate floor now expected to come on Thursday. Republicans, who lost a bid to prevent the committee vote, said before the hearing they would try to require that Hagel receive 60 votes for confirmation, rather than a simple majority.

But Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman, rejected the 60-vote threat. "There will not be a 60-vote tally on the final vote," Levin told the E-Ring, following the hearing. "Senator Reid has already made that clear. He made it clear at the meeting. I told him that I totally concur, that you cannot just make a cabinet position, just agree that on a final vote it's anything other than a majority vote. The 60-vote rule has to do with ending debate. It does not have to do with approving a bill or approving a nominee. There's a lot of confusion about that, understandably so."

Levin said that as a shortcut the Senate might pull a low-level bill or nominee they know doesn't have 60-vote support. It happens "once in a while round here, but it surely never would be used on a cabinet position," he said.

In what amounted to a second confirmation hearing without Hagel present, Republicans and Democrats rehashed all of their reasons for opposing or supporting President Barack Obama's choice to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but did little to sway each other from their fortified positions.

Instead, Democrats accused Republicans of stepping over the lines of decorum by questioning Hagel's patriotism and truthfulness. Republicans countered that they were asking fair questions that Hagel continues to dodge, including asking for clear evidence of whether $200,000 in income Hagel received through a capital group came from "radical groups" or foreign governments, including North Korea. 

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted against Hagel's nomination. McCain cited Hagel's refusal at the first confirmation hearing to agree with McCain's assertion that the Iraq surge worked. McCain also said he wanted to know more about Hagel's income from speeches given since he left the Senate.

McCain led a blockade that pits Senate Republicans against a significant number of bipartisan national security giants who have voiced their support for Hagel's nomination in recent weeks, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. Colin Powell, and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.

The very bipartisan tradition of the committee was tested sharply by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who made a stunning accusation by saying, "If Chuck Hagel is confirmed, it will make military conflict in the next four years substantially more likely." Cruz argued that a Hagel Pentagon would "encourage" Iran to speed up its nuclear program, which would thus require the U.S. to put troops "in harm's way" to stop Tehran. Cruz also complained Hagel would not answer additional questions about income from foreign governments.

That prompted a stern Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) to lecture the rookie directly. "Sen. Cruz has gone over the line. He basically impugned the patriotism of the nominee... about being cozy with Iran." Nelson said that former Sen. John Warner (R-VA) had "visibly winced" at Cruz's questioning in the first hearing.

"There's a certain degree of comity and civility that this committee has always been known for. And clearly, in the sharpness of difference of opinion, to question, in essence, whether somebody is a fellow traveler with another country, I think, is taking it too far," Nelson said.

"In no way shape or form have I impugned his patriotism," Cruz replied, and also denied claiming that Hagel was being untruthful. "His answers could be entirely truthful... my point is not that he has lied, it is that he refused to answer additional questions."

But ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) then said that Iran "endorsed" Hagel. "You can't get any cozier than that."

Finally, McCain spoke up to quiet his colleagues: "I just want to make it clear. Senator Hagel is an honorable man. He has served his country and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity."

As for the actual issues, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), in opposition, focused on Iran.

"I was deeply troubled by his statements with regard to containment [of Iran]," she said. Hagel stumbled in his confirmation hearing by saying he supported the U.S. policy of "containment," which would mean permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons but not allow them to spread to other countries. Actual U.S. policy, backed by the Senate, opposes containment. Hagel, in that hearing, corrected himself after making the flub.

"I don't think he came across clear and convincing," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), protesting Hagel's Iran answers, as well. "There's very few people with his voting record when it comes to Iran and Israel. There are very few people who have been this wrong about so many things."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opposed Hagel but said he thought the blunder was an honest slip of the tongue.

Sen. Levin argued that a Hagel defeat "would leave the Department of Defense leaderless" and warned of "an absence of senior leadership." But Panetta, aides say, has no plans to leave office before his successor is confirmed.

Levin wielded a strong gavel. He refused to accept GOP claims that he knowingly was hiding tapes or transcripts of six of Hagel's previous speeches from the committee. "He's not trying to hide speeches if he gave us 80 speeches," Levin said. Levin said members would have time to review any newly uncovered speeches -- "24 hours or so" -- depending on when majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brings the nomination for a vote.

"We will survive this one," Levin said. "I have no doubt about this committee's future bipartisanship, as difficult as this vote is."

Allison Shelley/Getty Images)

Posted By Kevin Baron

Global Zero, the nuclear disarmament advocacy organization that featured prominently in Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing yesterday, has issued a strong rejection of conservative Republican claims that its positions threaten U.S. nuclear prominence in any way.

Hagel’s own nuclear views, even his involvement with Global Zero, was expected to be tested in the hearing. What seemed to surprise the nominee on Thursday, however, was the obsessive focus by conservative senators on the May 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, which Hagel co-authored.

In fact, at the time of the report's release last year, Global Zero presented retired Gen. James E. Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as its chief author.

The report does present a laundry list of "illustrative next steps [that] are possible and desirable." The report repeatedly uses the phrase "illustrative steps" to refer to the actions it is, indeed, recommending. Among those steps Hagel and his co-authors put forth is unilateral reductions, though cautiously.

"The less good approach would be to adopt this agenda unilaterally. A strong case can nevertheless be made that unilateral U.S. deep cuts and de-alerting coupled with strengthened missile defenses and conventional capabilities would not weaken deterrence in practical terms vis-à-vis Russia, China or any of the more plausible nation- state challengers that America may confront in the years ahead."

Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) asked, “Why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability?” and questioned Hagel’s support for “Global Zero or whatever that group -- the organization was.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), seemed more informed and led most of the questioning, saying he was “more than a little troubled by the report that you participated in.”

“As I read the Global Zero report that you co-authored just last year, less than a year ago,” Sessions said, “you called for the elimination of all ICBMs, all tactical nuclear weapons, most of the bombers from -- I think 67 B-52s eliminated, leaving only 18 bombers and 10 submarines. So instead of 700 delivery systems that was part of the New START, it looks like you're down to about 28 delivery systems. So this is a dramatic -- I want to introduce -- a dramatic concern.”

Hagel said the report makes no recommendations, rather lays out long-term goals.

“Global Zero has been very clear on this. Their effort is in line with every major national leader in the world, including President Obama, to continue to try to make an effort to reduce our nuclear warheads.”

But Sessions was unsatisfied. “I would just say the vision stated in your Global Zero report, I believe, is likely to create instability rather than confidence and stability, create uncertainty in the world among our allies and our potential adversaries. And I do not believe it would meet the goal that you said not to weaken our ability.”

On Friday, Hagel’s co-authors -- Cartwright; Amb. Richard Burt; Amb. Thomas Pickering; and retired Gen. John J. Sheehan -- responded, saying, “Any suggestions that our positions on nuclear weapons are unilateralist or would somehow weaken the United States are wrong and irresponsible.”

The authors argued they believe disarmament would take decades and hold views clearly in the “mainstream.”

“Beyond the President of the United States, support for this goal is widespread among experienced, respected leaders from across the political spectrum -- including the hundreds of political, military, diplomatic, and national security leaders from the United States and around the world who are part of Global Zero.”

Read the entire statement here.

Matthew Lloyd/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Posted By Kevin Baron

Look out men, the front lines will never look the same again. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey will lift the ban on women fighting in direct combat, signing off on a policy shift that changes the face of the American military forever.

Following the announcement, details of which will be revealed Thursday morning, the Defense Department will have the military services begin their own processes to implement the change, which could take years.

Multiple news sources broke word on Wednesday that Panetta would lift the ban, prompting a hurried response from a senior defense official. The official confirmed to reporters, in response to the media reports, that the ban was being lifted.

"The secretary and the chairman are expected to announce the lifting of the direct combat exclusion rule for women in the military.  This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the Secretary of Defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"For planning purposes, we will hold a backgrounder tomorrow morning to discuss this change in policy.  Details to follow on time and location.  We will not have further information tonight."

The announcement comes perhaps only weeks before Panetta is expected to leave office, giving the secretary a major late-hour imprint on his legacy, which also includes lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops.

But it did not come without some prodding by women in the ranks. In 2012, two groups of women, including one backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the U.S. for greater openness to military jobs from which they were barred because of the ban on direct combat. Female troops long have argued that women have seen plenty of direct combat, despite the formal ban, in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past decade. But those same women have had their career, benefits, and salaries stunted by the ban, they argued.

"We are thrilled to hear Secretary Panetta's announcement today recognizing that qualified women will have the same chance to distinguish themselves in combat as their brothers-in-arms, which they actually already have been doing with valor and distinction," said Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, in a statement on Wednesday. "But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts."

In 2012, Panetta opened roughly 14,000 military jobs to women. But in November, a group of female troops, with the help of the ACLU, sued to open the remaining more than 238,000 positions, as well.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "I support it.  It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations."

A spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said more details about the reasons behind their recommendations to lift the ban would come Thursday morning.

John D McHugh/Getty Images

Posted By Kevin Baron

When Chuck Hagel arrives at the Pentagon, pending Senate confirmation, near the top of his E-Ring inbox will be President Obama’s plans to reduce and upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal.

The 2013 nuclear agenda could be quite full. The Pentagon has yet to release its plan to implement the Nuclear Posture Review, and amid continuing resolutions funding the fiscal year and the sequester-delayed budget request for 2014, the new defense secretary must decide the pace of building new nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. Additionally, the Obama administration is poised to start pushing below the caps established by the New START treaty, which limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 warheads each. With that agenda already penciled in, Hagel’s nomination has both thrilled nuclear disarmament advocates and concerned nuclear hawks in Congress.

Conservatives already have tried to block Hagel’s path to the Pentagon by labeling him soft on Israel, Iran, and war in general. And now they're trying a new angle: he’s soft on nuclear weapons.

On the day President Obama announced Hagel’s nomination, the leading conservative voice on nuclear issues in the House, Rep. Mike Turner, sent a blast email to reporters claiming Hagel’s positions were “fundamentally at odds with mainstream thinking and the President's stated policies.”  

Turner accused Hagel of having a “dangerous ideological agenda,” arguing, “This includes calls for drastic, and possibly unilateral, reductions in U.S. nuclear forces, eliminating the [intercontinental ballistic missile] leg of our nuclear deterrent and cancelling our other nuclear modernization programs.”

That’s a questionable charge by Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the previous Congress. When Hagel and Obama were senators in 2007, the two were close enough to cosponsor legislation that some nuclear watchdogs say was the “blueprint” to the president’s famous Prague speech, in which Obama called for a renewed focus on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. That speech came early in Obama’s presidency, in April 2009.

That year, after leaving the Senate, Hagel involved himself in the disarmament movement by joining the board of the Ploughshares Fund and the group Global Zero.

“We value his leadership on smart, bipartisan solutions to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, and applaud the President’s choice,” said Ploughshares’ chairman, Roger Hale, in a statement. “Sen. Hagel’s commitment to reducing nuclear dangers -- both in the Senate and in the years since -- sets him apart as one of America’s most insightful and effective voices on nuclear security.”

But not apart from the president, Hagel supporters insist.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday said he had dinner with Hagel and a follow-up lunch specifically on the defense budget this week. At a Pentagon press briefing, Panetta argued Hagel will have no trouble implementing the president’s nuclear policy.  

“There’s no question in my mind,” Panetta said, of the nuclear concerns. “I’ve known Chuck Hagel a long time. I think a lot of the criticisms that are being made right now are unfair, but he’ll have the opportunity to speak to those when he goes for his confirmation hearing….  There are a lot of charges that will be out there. There’ll be a lot of criticisms that are out there but ultimately the truth prevails, and I think the truth in this case will mean that he’ll be confirmed.”

Ploughshares Fund argues that Hagel represents a “growing bipartisan” movement on nuclear reduction. When he was at the Atlantic Council, Hagel “joined with Gen. James Cartwright, Amb. Richard Burt, Amb. Thomas Pickering, Gen. Jack Sheehan and Dr. Bruce Blair in practical recommendations for the 2012 study, Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Force Structure and Posture.”

Other advocates agree. “There is a mainstream point of view” on nuclear arms reductions, said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, which advocates for fewer nuclear weapons. A 2012 Pentagon white paper already has called specifically for a smaller nuclear force, Kimball said.

Hagel is therefore more likely to oversee the enactment of the Obama administration’s already crafted nuclear policy than he is expected to drastically alter it. He’ll work directly with Obama’s team of Pentagon, State Department, and White House national security staffers, led by Under Secretary of Defense Jim Miller, the Pentagon’s top policy official; Acting Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller; and Gary Samore, the White House’s point man for weapons of mass destruction.

“Hagel will be part of that equation as Washington and Moscow try to go forward to try and go beyond New START,” Kimball said.

It’s what reduction advocates call “right-sizing” the nuclear force, and Hagel could be in charge of making some early budget decisions this year. For one, how many new nuclear submarines will DOD produce? The Pentagon plans to replace a dozen Ohio-class submarines at upwards of $7 billion each, or by some estimates, $350 billion over the life of that program. Last year, the Pentagon delayed the build of one of two submarines by two years, angering defense hawks on the Hill. Additionally, the Pentagon is still developing the next long-range bomber, at a hit of an estimated $55 billion -- a cost which critics argue is sure to go up, if past is prologue for military aircraft production.

So how many warheads, submarines, bombers, and missiles are enough? Russia is the only other country with enough nuclear weapons to challenge the U.S. arsenal, yet arms trackers say Russia’s arsenal is likely going to shrink because of cost.  “The last I heard, the Cold War is over. We’re no longer enemies. There’s virtually no chance of a bolt from the blue,” Kimball said.

One common concern of hawks like Turner is that the Obama administration, with Hagel’s blessing, would enact “unilateral nuclear reductions.” But Obama has not advocated that position.

The good news for Hagel is that Congressman Turner has no vote in the Senate. But Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the new ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, does.

“Yes, nuclear issues are one of the few areas of concern that Sen. Inhofe will be speaking with Sen. Hagel about,” a Senate aide told the E-Ring. Inhofe currently is on an overseas congressional delegation visit to Asia.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Hagel. “I’m going to withhold judgment for now and rely on the hearings and meetings in making my determination," Corker said. "I’m sure Senator Hagel’s views on nuclear arms issues will receive significant scrutiny as he goes through the confirmation process. I served with him in the Senate and respect his military background and willingness to serve our country in such an important role.”

UPDATED: This piece was updated to correct a previous version. Sen. Corker has not endorsed Hagel.


Dave Fliesen/U.S. Navy via Getty Images

Posted By Kevin Baron

Chuck Hagel has built up a long and detailed record of his thinking on national security. In speeches and op-eds, Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has presented a vision of American foreign policy that calls for building alliances, even with adversaries, and for recognizing the limitations of force and the patience required of diplomacy. Here are 10 quotes from President Obama’s nominee to succeed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that give us a better idea of what to expect from the former senator.

1.    “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.”

At the height of anti-Iraq War fever in November 2006, the Bush administration was facing a decision: double-down with a massive troop “surge” or pull out before the insurgency could do any more damage. As party lines ruled the day, Hagel published an op-ed in the Washington Post that broke ranks and said out loud that the U.S. was not winning the war. Hagel opposed the coming troop surge and advocated withdrawal. “We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” he wrote. By then, Hagel’s opposition was no secret, but the article stuck in Washington’s collective mind.

When Hagel retired in 2008, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said this in his floor tribute speech: “Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the president's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ‘an absolute replay of Vietnam.’”

2.    “The worst thing we can do, the most dangerous thing we can do is continue to isolate nations, is to continue to not engage nations. Great powers engage.”

The foreign policy debate over engagement with antagonistic regimes like Iran and North Korea -- and even China and Russia -- continues to rage. Hagel, in a keynote speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York in December 2008, put himself at odds with the large chunk of Washington -- and Congress -- that prefers sanctions and military threats to diplomacy in attempts mitigate threats abroad. But Hagel’s focus on alliances will fit nicely with the Pentagon’s desire for “relationship building” and “building partner capacity” with friendly foreign armies. In warning that the military can’t fix Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, Hagel has called for the U.S. to work the region’s countries into “some alignment of common interests.”  

3.    "I told Obama he should pick Biden as his running mate."

In 2008, Barack Obama had a wide selection of Democrats from which to pick his vice presidential running mate. Obama, a young, one-term senator with a worldly personal background but little experience in governance, had already sought out foreign policy mentoring from his elders in Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), Hagel, and Joe Biden, a longtime senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Biden’s own run for the presidency fizzled, Obama kept him in close counsel and made the white-haired elder his second, with Hagel’s blessing. Since occupying the White House, Obama has kept Hagel close. Now the president has Biden at his side, Kerry at the State Department, and Hagel in the Pentagon.

4.    “There is no glory in war, only suffering.”

At the ground-breaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in 1982, a much younger Hagel uttered that bold phrase, reflecting the disdain of the nation at the war. Hagel and his brother, Tom, served together in Vietnam, earning Purple Hearts at a time when Americans did not support the troops like they do today. But the wounds have never healed. Hagel frequently invokes the “folly” of Vietnam and is viewed as a non-interventionist. That makes him an interesting pick to lead the military at this moment. In May 2011, once again at the wall, Hagel repeated the phrase in a speech. Keep that in mind as Hagel likely directs the end of the Afghanistan war and the beginning of the expensive post-war era for millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, some facing a lifetime of emotional and physical healing. “As we have painfully learned from the tragic misadventure of Vietnam, society must always separate the war from the warrior. We do not celebrate the Vietnam War. We commemorate and historically recognize it.”

5.    “I don't have to be President. I don't have to be a senator. I just have to live with myself.”

On the Senate floor in late 2008, tribute speeches poured in over Hagel’s reputation as an independent voice and respected leader on foreign policy and national security that ignored party lines. As a result, there is a record of praise for Hagel that would appear to make his confirmation far easier than has been portrayed recently. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called Hagel “one of the bravest and most fiercely independent Members of this legislative body.” Reid said that quote, which he appeared to paraphrase on the Senate floor, was Hagel’s answer to those calling for him to run for the presidency or vice presidency. Byrd said: “The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel -- lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said, “In the Senate, Chuck embraced responsibility for U.S. national security as few Senators have in recent decades.”

6.    “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”

Perhaps the loudest pre-nomination concern over Hagel has been his allegedly insufficient support for Israel. But in a 2006 speech on the Senate floor, Hagel said the U.S. should walk and chew gum at the same time in the Middle East. He said that Israel has the right to defend itself, he blasted Arab attacks, and he called for an international military force to deploy along the Lebanese border. But he also said: “The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an ‘us against the world’ global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's global leadership, our trust and influence, further isolating Israel, and it would prove disastrous for both countries, as well as the region. It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.” That position may not mesh with some senators’ views. But how different is it from the White House’s?

7.    “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power.”

With the United States more than a year into the global war on terrorism, Hagel invoked the anti-imperial warnings of Winston Churchill in delivering the Landon Lecture at Kansas State University. It was February 2003, and the Bush administration was on the verge of invading Iraq -- an action that would marry U.S. troops to that country for eight years. Hagel set the bar high for using American military force to solve foreign policy problems. Staring down the concern over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Hagel said, “American purpose requires more than the application of American power,” warning that the U.S. would have to stay in Iraq for post-war rebuilding. “War, if it is necessary, should be a means, and not an end, to achieve a plan of action to encourage conflict resolution and peaceful change in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

8.     “We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.”

In 2009, Hagel challenged President Obama and the United States to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq sooner rather than later, arguing that neither war was America’s to win. “Win what?” he asked, explaining that changing minds and the quality of life in places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would require “political accommodation and reconciliation.” That term was far more controversial three years ago, when Hagel inked it in the Washington Post.  And, again, Hagel pushed for long-term, multinational coalition building across regions that work with perceived adversaries to find common interests. “Does anyone believe we will get to a responsible resolution on Iran without Russia?” Good question, still.


9.    “It's never a good easy clean choice in foreign policy.”

In a 2007 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel basically rejected the “with us or against us” approach of the Bush administration and took a sharp jab at the talking points heard on the presidential campaign trail. Hagel was basically telling the partisans in Washington to leave national security to the grown-ups. Look for him to show his appreciation for nuance in the massive Defense Department by resisting rhetorical spit-balling from Obama’s detractors on issues like the budget, China, Iran, Russia, and even Israel.

10.    “Time is the most critical commodity you have.  If you squander the time, if you squander the moment, if you squander the opportunity, if you squander the boldness, what price do you pay on that?” 

In that same CFR forum heading into the 2008 election cycle, Hagel criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to promote international alliances, spending too much time reacting to crises and not driving a long-term strategic vision. He later challenged President Obama to start thinking about how to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, Pentagon workers describe 2012 as a year spent in waiting -- for a budget, for troop numbers in Afghanistan, and, frankly, for a new defense secretary. If past is prologue, don’t expect a Secretary Hagel to slow roll into the job. Could he convince the president to speed up an Afghanistan war ending sooner than 2014? It wouldn’t be out of character.

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

Posted By Kevin Baron

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post reported that Brig. Gen. Richard Simcock was still in his role as acting deputy assistant secretary of defense. He is currently deputy commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific. The deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East under International Security Affairs is Matthew Spence.

If history is any guide, President Obama’s Tuesday victory should allow his second-term administration to sink its feet into the cement and go after some contentious national security issues tabled for the election season. Topping the list: the fate of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the pace of the Afghanistan war exit, and the never-ending budget fight with Congressional Republicans over defense spending and sequestration.

But across the Potomac, the administration’s Pentagon team is far from stable, starting at the top. You can’t find a single person from the E-Ring to the food court Popeye’s who thinks that Obama’s defense secretary, Leon Panetta, will still be at his desk next summer. When Panetta goes, likely so does much of his staff, including his right-hand man and chief of staff, Jeremy Bash.

Obama and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to beg Panetta multiple times not to retire to California last year and to take the Pentagon post instead. Panetta was courted because he was a veteran Democrat with street credibility, having helmed the CIA during the Osama bin Laden raid, as well as a former White House budget director and House Budget Committee chairman.

But Panetta’s value to the administration’s budget negotiations is unclear. Panetta opposes sequestration but, with Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, supports defense cuts. It's also unlcear how much influence a lame-duck Panetta will have in swaying the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who just lost the White House to Panetta’s boss. For most of the year, however, the budget fight has largely played out above even Panetta’s rank, between the president and the House and Senate leadership.

Some are more confident than others about who may replace Panetta, but the short list remains unchanged, topped by Michele Flournoy, the former under secretary of defense and Pentagon policy chief who has campaigned vigorously for Obama, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, the respected former weapons-buyer well-known to the military-industrial complex and Congress. Sources close to the administration tell the E-Ring some discussions are ongoing about Panetta’s successor, but that it’s still a little early in the game. One thing is certain: nobody expects Panetta to head back to the walnut farm in Monterrey in January.

If Carter were to vacate his post, eyes fall south to the Pentagon comptroller, Bob Hale. Hale has a reputation as a bit of an unsung hero at the Pentagon. Hale’s second-in-command, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Mike McCord, is well thought-of -- enough to take over what building denizens describe as a very specialized job with an importance out of proportion to the attention paid to it, given the ongoing budget fight.

“They oughta get down on their knees and pray that Bob Hale sticks around,” said one source who insisted on anonymity to discuss potential personnel changes.

One Army procurement officer told the E-Ring that he has never felt so much uncertainty in the Pentagon, citing Panetta’s unknown retirement date, the lack of a deal to avoid sequestration, and the anticipation of a new Afghanistan war plan for 2013 and beyond.

The uncertainty bleeds into Panetta’s closest circles, too, including Bash and press secretary George Little.

“Both Jeremy Bash and George Little are expected to serve in a second Obama term,” said a Pentagon official. But any new secretary is likely to want his own “special assistant,” so while Bash is likely to remain an Obama man, he probably will land somewhere outside the post-Panetta Pentagon.

As for Little, in usual changeovers, a new defense secretary would mean a new press secretary. But the Pentagon’s public affairs shop is an unusual outfit. There have been four different faces at the briefing room podium in the last 18 months: Geoff Morrell, former press secretary to Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Doug Wilson, former assistant secretary of defense; Rear Adm. John Kirby, former spokesman for Adm. Mike Mullen and the Defense Department who now runs the Navy’s public affairs; and Little.

Little came from CIA in 2011 with Panetta, and in little more than a year the Pentagon’s public affairs shop went through at least three iterations, with Little having various levels of control. But Little has moved from being just the press secretary at the podium into the much bigger office of assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. Well, make that “acting” ASD. Little’s appointment has not been confirmed because it is not yet a confirmable position, but the E-Ring has learned the administration would prefer some stability beyond Panetta in that job.

Farther down the roster, the Pentagon just last year refreshed many key deputy assistant secretaries of defense (DASDs) after Gates’ retirement. Still, two posts are staffed by “acting” officials: one in the Asian and Pacific Security Affairs shop (Dave Helvey, who covers East Asia) and one under Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict (Caryn Hollis who covers counternarcotics and global threats). One posts remains vacant: the DASD for space policy, under Global Strategic Affairs.

Outside of the administration, the three most visible former Pentagon officials on the campaign are Flournoy, Wilson, and former Middle East DASD Colin Kahl. After their multistate, mutli-mock national security debate efforts on the campaign trail, all three should be high on the White House list of those expecting to return to the administration in some capacity.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Kevin Baron reports on the people and policies driving the Pentagon and the national security establishment in The E-Ring.

Read More