Climate change may not be the biggest security threat to the Pacific region in the long term. But it may be the biggest threat in the “long, long term.”

That’s the clarification offered on Tuesday by Adm. Samuel Locklear, Pacific Command commander, to a Boston Globe interview he gave last month.

As the Globe wrote it, Locklear was asked during a Boston visit in March, “What is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region?”

“Significant upheaval related to the warming planet [Locklear said] ‘is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen…that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’’

With his first question in Tuesday’s Armed Services Committee hearing, ranking Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma, one of the Senate’s staunchest climate change skeptics, asked Locklear “what you meant by that.”

“A lot of the people who are trying to…use your statement are the very people who think we're spending too much money on defense and that money should be spent in other areas,” Inhofe said. “And some of the environmental extremists don't really believe we need to have that strong of a military, as strong as we have right now.”

Locklear, right on cue, thanked the senior senator for the opportunity to clarify his remarks.

“I gave a hundred or so interviews over the last year. And during those interviews, I can assure the committee that I always start by talking about the most pressing military threats that we have,” Locklear said, listing North Korea and China.  

“And in this particular case, I did the same,” Locklear said, of the Globe interview. “Then we started to talk about the long term -- the long, long term, and what are the implications of it.”

Locklear then explained that Asia is very populous, most people there live near water, and many people have died from natural disasters in recent years, some of which can be attributed to climate change.

At that point, Inhofe quickly cut off Locklear, unsatisfied at the admiral’s answer.

“OK, I -- sir, I'm going to interrupt you here,” Inhofe said, “because now you've used up half my time, and we didn't get right around to -- is it safe to say that in the event that this -- that the climate is changing -- which so many of the scientists disagree with -- in fact, when the Boston Globe, coming out of Massachusetts, made a statement, perhaps arguably one of the top scientists in the country, Richard Lindzen, also from Massachusetts, MIT, said that was laughable.”

Inhofe eventually came back to his own point and asked the admiral if it would be “a more secure world” if the U.S. could provide its Pacific allies with energy.

“Absolutely,” Locklear replied to Inhofe, who moved on to his second national security concern of the day.

“Yeah. OK. Let me say something about China.”

Senate Republicans successfully blocked a final vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for defense secretary on Thursday, but they conceded he will ultimately win confirmation and take the Pentagon helm.
 
As Democrats expected, they came up two votes short of the 60 required to end floor debate and allow Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call for the final vote on Hagel. But several Republicans conceded that they would agree to end debate when lawmakers return to Washington after next week's recess, knowing that Hagel has the simple majority needed to win confirmation.
 
The outcome means Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will keep his job one more week. Panetta, his wife Sylvia, and his beloved dog, Bravo vacated his Pentagon office anyway, smiling, shaking hands, waiving goodbye and hugging top Defense Department officials lining the grand staircase leading to the front door. Panetta will fly home to California, but later this week he will have to make one more overseas trip, to attend a meeting of NATO ministers and discuss President Obama’s Afghanistan drawdown plans.

"Today, Senate Republicans put political posturing ahead of our nation’s security," said White Hosue press secretary Jay Carney, in a statement.

"This waste of time is not without consequence," Carney argued, saying Hagel should be the one going to Brussels. "For the sake of national security, it’s time to stop playing politics with our Department of Defense, and to move beyond the distractions and delay.  Allow this war hero an up or down vote, and let our troops have the Secretary of Defense they deserve."

"Secretary Panetta believes that Chuck Hagel will be an excellent secretary of defense," said Pentagon press secretary George Little, in a statement, "and looks forward to his confirmation following the upcoming Congressional recess.  Until then, Secretary Panetta will continue to serve as Secretary.  Secretary Panetta will attend the NATO Ministerial in Brussels next week and will continue to carry out his duties as Secretary of Defense."
 
Reid voted “no” on the vote to end debate after seeing it would fail, which enables him to call for another vote at any time he chooses, his staff explained. Calling the vote “one of the saddest spectacles I have witnessed in my 27 years in the Senate,” Reid expressed his outrage at Republicans for what Democrats said was an unfair and ever-changing list of demands.
 
“Despite unprecedented responsiveness and transparency from the White House, Republicans have constantly invented new pretexts for opposing Senator Hagel’s nomination, and Republicans continued their embarrassing display of disregard for our national security by blocking Senator Hagel’s nomination today."
 
On the floor, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) backed the filibuster, saying, “He is the wrong person at the worst time for the job.”
 
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) complained to no avail, “This isn’t fair…for goodness sakes, swallow your pride.”
 
Reid said the Senate will try again to confirm Hagel on February 25.
 

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on Friday rejected Republican demands that Chuck Hagel provide additional financial disclosure records as excessive and promised a quick confirmation vote in the Armed Services Committee.

Chairman Levin said in a written reply to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the committee’s ranking member, that the request made on Wednesday by 25 senators for financial disclosure requirements by Hagel “far exceed the standard practices of the Armed Services Committee and go far beyond the financial disclosure required of previous Secretaries of Defense.”

Levin had hoped the committee would vote on Hagel’s confirmation by Thursday. But Republicans say they want to know more about how much Hagel was paid for giving speeches and serving on several boards over the past 10 years.

Inhofe surprised the committee last month when in his opening statement at Hagel’s confirmation hearing the opposition leader led with questions not about hot issues for Hagel like Iran or Israel, but instead with complaints about the lack of disclosures for speeches and the transcripts of several speeches.

But it is freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who also asked for additional information, who was given the task of securing the 25 signatures. Republicans have put the unknown firebrand Cruz out front this year as their leading and fiercest opposition voice to Hagel’s nomination.

Still, while several senators have threatened to hold or try to filibuster Hagel’s nomination, other key conservative defense leaders have said they do not support the stall tactics, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), minority leader, said this week he did not think Republicans had enough unity to force a filibuster.

The text of Levin’s letter follows:


The Honorable Jim Inhofe
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

Dear Jim:

I read with some concern a February 6, 2013, letter that you signed with 25 other Republican Senators, demanding that former Senator Chuck Hagel provide additional financial disclosure information in connection with his nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense.  This letter appears to insist upon financial disclosure requirements that far exceed the standard practices of the Armed Services Committee and go far beyond the financial disclosure required of previous Secretaries of Defense.

Our committee has a well-defined set of financial disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all nominees for civilian positions in the Department of Defense.  We require each nominee to provide us with the following:

·         a copy of the Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report required by the Ethics in Government Act – OGE Form 278;

·         a response to a standard committee questionnaire, which includes questions on future employment relationships, potential conflicts of interest,  personal financial data, and foreign affiliations; and

·         a formal ethics agreement, which outlines the steps the nominee will take to avoid any potential conflict of interest, including a commitment by the nominee to divest DOD contractor stocks within 90 days of appointment to office, avoid buying DOD contractor stocks while in office, and resign from non-Federal boards and activities.

Before these materials are provided to the committee, they are reviewed by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and the DOD General Counsel’s office – both of which are familiar with the unique conflict of interest requirements imposed by our committee – to ensure that the required disclosures of information meet our standards.  The leader of each of these offices sends us a letter certifying that the office has reviewed the financial disclosure and determined that the nominee will be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.  Our majority and minority counsels review these materials and work together, through the DOD General Counsel’s office, to address any questions that may arise about the completeness of the materials provided or the nominee’s compliance with our requirements.

We have applied these disclosure requirements and followed this process for all nominees of both parties throughout the 16 years that I have served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee.  I understand that the same financial disclosure requirements and processes were followed for at least the previous 10 years, during which Senator Sam Nunn served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member.  During this period, the committee has confirmed eight Secretaries of Defense (Secretaries Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry, Cohen, Rumsfeld, Gates, and Panetta), as well as hundreds of nominees for other senior civilian positions in the Department.

There are two unprecedented elements to the financial disclosure demanded by the February 6, letter:  (1) the disclosure of “all compensation over $5,000 that [Senator Hagel has] received over the past five years”; and (2) the disclosure of any foreign funding of eight private entities from which Senator Hagel has received compensation since leaving the Senate (including the date, source, and specific amount of each foreign contribution).  Each of these demands goes well beyond what the committee has required of any previous nominee.

With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose all compensation over $5,000 that he has received over the past five years, the standard financial disclosure form which the committee requires all nominees to provide calls for the disclosure of all entities from which the nominee has received compensation in excess of $5,000 (including clients for whom the nominee personally provided more than $5,000 in services, even if the payments were made to the nominee’s employer, firm, or affiliated business) during that the previous two years.  The two-year disclosure requirement that has been consistently applied by the committee is established in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act and applies not only to all nominees for Senate-confirmed positions, but also to all candidates for federal elective office.

With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose foreign funding for private entities from which he has received compensation, the February 6 letter asserts that this information is needed because “If it is the case that [Senator Hagel] personally [has] received substantial financial remuneration – either directly or indirectly – from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is at the very minimum relevant to this Committee’s assessment of your nomination.”

In fact, the committee questionnaire addresses the issue of foreign affiliations in a manner that is equally applicable to all civilian nominees coming before the committee.  Among other questions, the committee questionnaire asks whether, during the last ten years, the nominee or his spouse has “received any compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government.”    Senator Hagel’s answer to this question was “No.”

The demands of the February 6 letter go beyond this standard disclosure regime and would subject Senator Hagel to a different requirement from all previous nominees, under which he alone would be required to somehow ascertain whether certain entities with whom he has been employed may have received foreign contributions.  In particular:

·         Senator Hagel serves without compensation as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council – a “think tank” that includes among its other Directors and Honorary Directors seven former Secretaries of States and four former Secretaries of Defense.  The Atlantic Council’s public website provides a diverse list of corporate contributors, including both domestic companies (such as Chevron, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy, and Exxon Mobil) and foreign entities (such as Polish Telecom, Saab, All Nippon Airways, and the Istanbul Stock Exchange).  Over the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous nominations of individuals who were associated with similar think tanks, universities, and other non-profit entities.  Even in the many cases where a nominee received compensation from such a non-profit entity, we did not require the nominee to disclose the sources of funding provided to the non-profit entity. 

·         Senator Hagel has also served as an Advisory Board Member, Senior Advisor, Director, Special Advisor, or Board Member to seven domestic for-profit entities identified in the February 6 letter since he left the Senate in January 2009.  His financial disclosure report and committee questionnaire indicate that he left four of these entities (Wolfensohn & Company, National Interest Security Company, Elite Training & Security, and Kaseman, LLC) in 2010 and has received no compensation from them during the two-year reporting period covered by the Ethics in Government Act.  Nonetheless, the February 6 letter demands that Senator Hagel provide ten years of corporate financial data on foreign investments or funding received by these entities.  The forms and committee questionnaire indicate that Senator Hagel continues to serve as an Advisory Board Member for Corsair Capital, a Senior Advisor to McCarthy Capital, and a Special Advisor to the Chairman of M.I.C. Industries and that he has received compensation for his service to these three entities.  I am doubtful that, as mere advisor to these companies, Senator Hagel has either access to the corporate financial information that is sought in the February 6 letter or the authority to release such information if he were able to get access to it.  In any case, over the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous nominations of individuals who were employed by for-profit entities of every variety.  We have considered board members, officers, directors, and employees of companies doing business across the full range of our economy.  In this time, we have never required the nominee to attempt to ascertain and disclose the names of investors in such an entity.

The committee cannot have two different sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees, one for Senator Hagel and one for other nominees.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin
Chairman

So much for the opposition of the "Jewish lobby" to Chuck Hagel's nomination for defense secretary. On Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer said he would vote to confirm Hagel and encouraged his Senate colleagues to do the same.

Schumer said after an hour-and-a-half meeting on Monday that he emerged satisfied with Hagel on a number of earlier concerns, in a statement released to reporters through Hagel's confirmation team. Schumer said he felt Hagel's views on issues including the Middle East are "genuine."

"Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him," Schumer said.

Before Hagel was officially nominated, conservatives and Jewish groups objected to his use of the term "Jewish lobby" in reference to the influence of American pro-Israel groups on U.S. positions toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Schumer's hesitation to support Hagel had come to represent that opposition; many observers felt if Schumer voted no, he could take more than a dozen senators with him and threaten Hagel's confirmation. That threat effectively disappears with Schumer's endorsement.  

"Regarding his unfortunate use of the term 'Jewish lobby,' to refer to certain pro-Israel groups, Senator Hagel understands the sensitivity around such a loaded term and regrets saying it," Schumer said.

The complete statement follows:

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Tuesday regarding the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense:

When Senator Hagel’s name first surfaced as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense, I had genuine concerns over certain aspects of his record on Israel and Iran. Once the President made his choice, however, I agreed to keep these reservations private until I had the opportunity to discuss them fully with Senator Hagel in person.

In a meeting Monday, Senator Hagel spent approximately 90 minutes addressing my concerns one by one. It was a very constructive session. Senator Hagel could not have been more forthcoming and sincere.

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.

In our meeting Monday, Senator Hagel clarified a number of his past statements and positions and elaborated on several others.

On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country. But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do “whatever it takes” to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force. He said his “top priority” as Secretary of Defense would be the planning of military contingencies related to Iran. He added that he has already received a briefing from the Pentagon on this topic.

In terms of sanctions, past statements by Senator Hagel sowed concerns that he considered unilateral sanctions against Iran to be ineffective. In our meeting, however, Senator Hagel clarified that he “completely” supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran. He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.

On Hezbollah, Senator Hagel stressed that—notwithstanding any letters he refused to sign in the past—he has always considered the group to be a terrorist organization.

On Hamas, I asked Senator Hagel about a letter he signed in March 2009 urging President Obama to open direct talks with that group’s leaders. In response, Senator Hagel assured me that he today believes there should be no negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group until they renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Senator Hagel volunteered that he has always supported Israel’s right to retaliate militarily in the face of terrorist attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas. He understood the predicament Israel is in when terrorist groups hide rocket launchers among civilian populations and stage attacks from there. He supported Israel’s right to defend herself even in those difficult circumstances.

In keeping with our promises to help equip Israel, Senator Hagel pledged to work towards the on-time delivery of the F-35 joint strike fighters to Israel, continue the cooperation between Israel and the U.S. on Iron Dome, and recommend to the President that we refuse to join in any NATO exercises if Turkey should continue to insist on excluding Israel from them.  Senator Hagel believes Israel must maintain its Qualitative Military Edge.

Regarding his unfortunate use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to certain pro-Israel groups, Senator Hagel understands the sensitivity around such a loaded term and regrets saying it.

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

On issues related to female and LGBT service members, Senator Hagel provided key assurances as well. He said he is committed to implementing the Shaheen amendment to improve the reproductive health of military women. He also supports the full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In general, I believe any President deserves latitude in selecting his own advisors. While the Senate confirmation process must be allowed to run its course, it is my hope that Senator Hagel’s thorough explanations will remove any lingering controversy regarding his nomination.

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.

As Indiana Jones knows, the Pentagon has top men working on things like its budget year round. Top men. But as the White House and congressional leaders enter into negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff and sequestration, budget teams inside the Pentagon eager to avoid enormous and automatic cuts are busily working on…nothing.

“The Department has not received detailed planning guidance on sequestration from [the White House Office of Management and Budget], and we are not planning for it.  We are still hopeful that Congress will pass a balanced deficit-reduction plan for the president to sign, and sequestration is averted,” said Lt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins, spokesperson for the Defense Department’s budget affairs. Sound familiar?

After all this time, after a year’s worth of doomsday warnings about the “catastrophic” effects of a budget stalemate on the military, even in this eleventh hour the Pentagon’s top budget teams are left waiting and wondering. Without the green light from OMB, they are not allowed to begin.

There's no buzzing inside the building to come up with scenarios and schemes to meet any deals between Democrats and Republicans. The Pentagon, like the rest of us, is in limbo.

“It's a difficult time to be a comptroller,” Robbins explained to the E-Ring. Not only does the Pentagon not know what to expect of the future, which makes planning the fiscal year 2014 budget near impossible, the current year's budget also hasn’t been approved.  

“Since we don't have an appropriated FY13 budget, we are running the department on a continuing resolution [CR] while producing an FY14 budget without an approved FY13 baseline. In addition, the FY14 budget we're working on does not take into account the additional $52.3 billion of cuts required by sequestration,” said Robbins. Got that?

“So if sequestration occurs, the department will have to rework the entire FY14 budget to reflect the additional cuts, and we'll have to implement sequestration without knowing the FY13 funding levels of specific programs, projects, and activities that Congress will ultimately approve. So either a deal on sequestration will be made and we can carry on with building a FY14 budget while under a CR, or on January 3 we'll need to move quickly to adjust course.”

The budget talks are now in the hands of President Obama, who over the weekend spoke with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday.

If Democrats and Republicans make a deal on FY13 and future spending and revenue deadlocks, and if DOD can finish its work preparing the FY14 budget request, that request still must be vetted through OMB before President Obama submits it to Congress, usually by early February. If they don't make a deal, OMB is expected sometime quickly to finally give DOD a green light to start planning to implement more than $50 billion in automatic cuts next year, as well as retool the 2014 request to meet a lower budget ceiling. The FY14 budget still has to be submitted.

The Pentagon comptroller, Under Secretary of Defense Robert F. Hale, said in an interview with Politico released on Monday that there will be no sudden personnel or programmatic cuts on January 3, the morning after sequester penalties kick in. A defense official confirmed to E-Ring that it will take Hale’s team a few weeks to determine and enact the actual furloughs and spending cuts required. That job falls to Hale and Michael McCord, principal deputy under secretary of defense, as well as John Roth, the deputy under secretary of defense for programs and budget, and Blaine Aaron, the deputy under secretary of defense for budget and appropriations.  

Outside the building, stakeholders are not sitting silently, though. Defense industry representatives applauded even the hint of compromise to break the stalemate, appearing to endorse both revenue increases and spending cuts as necessary to make a deal.

On Monday, Marion C. Blakey, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, said, “We urge negotiators to focus on a balanced approach that considers all reasonable solutions and ultimately produces a plan that also includes adequate revenue and entitlement reform. Our country’s long-term national security and financial health depend on it.”

Two weeks before the elections, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta waded into politics and rapped Congress across the knuckles for leaving "a great deal of critical work" on national security unfinished he said they must complete when they return to a lame-duck session in November.

"Congress is clearly on the clock," said Panetta, a former House member, demanding that in the 70 days left this year members of Congress avoid sequestration, pass a defense authorization and appropriations bills and a cybersecurity bill, and confirm the nominations of Gen. John Allen and Gen. Joseph Dunford to head NATO and the Afghanistan war.

"As I made clear this month, we really do need strong cybersecurity legislation," he said. Allen and Dunford are expected to have confirmation hearings this year. The House already passed its version of the defense authorization bill but the Senate is awaiting floor debate. That bill includes several highly controversial provisions, including rules governing the military detention of terrorism suspects and restrictions on the military's biofuel purchases.

"This is a full agenda," he warned.  "It's one that requires Democrats and Republicans to work togehter. And after a tough national election, the American people I think will expect both parties to roll up their sleeves, work togehter to solve the problems facing the nation, and to protect our national security."