Chuck Hagel's Afghanistan Positions Align Closely To Obama's, Despite War Critic Reputation

In this June 26, 2008 file photo, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) speaks on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. President Barack Obama may round out his new national security leadership team next week, with a nomination for defense secretary expected and a pick to lead the CIA possible. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke, File)

President Barack Obama is reportedly set to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, as his secretary of defense on Monday.

Hagel, a Republican who represented the state of Nebraska for two terms, famously broke with his party in the mid 2000s over the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror and its military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But while Hagel has built a solid reputation -- decried by the right and hailed by the left -- for being a no-nonsense war critic and foreign policy realist, he has also emerged as a quiet partner of President Obama on foreign policy, a relationship that dates back to their shared time on Capitol Hill and extending into Hagel's retirement.

That relationship is no better exemplified than in the debate over Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, about which Hagel had been publicly skeptical but in the end a tactic he largely avoided criticizing as he had done previously with the surge in Iraq.

In 2006, as Congress debated supporting President Bush's troop surge into Iraq, Hagel fiercely opposed the plan, calling it "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

Similarly, he often charged that a surge into Afghanistan would be a mistake if there was not a better-articulated overall strategy.

"I'm not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan," Hagel told The National Journal's Michael Hirsh in 2010. "It's not sustainable at all. I think we're marking time as we slaughter more young people."

But his message on the Afghanistan troop surge was always more complex. In the summer of 2009, as the Obama administration studied the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and prepared for a possible surge of troops into that war, Hagel offered surprisingly high praise for the president's deliberation process.

"It's a tough call -- I think it's going to be his toughest call in his first four years," said Hagel in a September 2009 speech at St. John's University in Minnesota. "Whatever he says, he's going to get hit politically ... You're going to have one hell of a shootout here. This guy Obama's smart enough, he's tough enough, he'll do what he thinks is right for the country."

In addition to praising the president, Hagel's own position has come more in line with that of Obama, whose thoughts on the surge were in evidence when the president was just a candidate calling for a renewed focus on Afghanistan.

"We are stretched too thin in Afghanistan, in my opinion, with manpower," Obama said on "Face the Nation" in July 2008, at a time when Hagel had still refused to endorse John McCain for president and was already fielding questions about whether he might take a cabinet position in an Obama administration. "We are going to have to put some additional troops in there."

By the summer of 2009, when General Stanley McChrystal delivered his Afghanistan troop assessment that called for tens of thousands of new forces, Hagel had gone from anti-war gadfly to an instrumental part of the Obama foreign policy machine, including positions on Secretary of Defense Bob Gates' defense policy board and Obama's intelligence advisory board.

"I've had some input on this," he said, during the 2009 speech, in response to a question about the surge. "I'm on the secretary of defense's policy advisory board, and I spent a day and a half last week with the national security adviser [James] Jones last weekend. So I have some ways in. Doesn't mean they listen to me, but I do have some sense of what's ahead here."

The speech, part of the Eugene J. McCarthy lecture series (which honors the famous senator-turned-Vietnam war critic), would have been an ideal environment for Hagel to express any strong misgivings about the ultimate plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Instead, Hagel tempered his critique.

"I think the president is approaching this very carefully, listening to all sides," he said. "I've talked to McChrystal, Admiral [Mike] Mullen. I've told them my thoughts on this because they've asked me. They've got to figure it out what is our strategic purpose, our doctrine, and then match the resources."

Posted: 01/07/2013 11:18 am EST

Updated: 01/07/2013 11:31 am EST
Joshua Hersh

Political Science Professor Jim Read Writes Op-Ed for Saint Cloud Times on the Proposed Voter ID Amendment

Voter ID doesn't prevent fraud

Proposed amendment will negatively affect students

 

Students at my university come from many cities and towns in Minnesota and other states. Many will be voting for the first time Nov. 6. They will not all vote the same way. They differ politically like the rest of us. What brings them together is that their college campus has become their new home for four years, the community where they emerge as adults and full participants in our democracy.
On the ballot in Minnesota this year is a proposed constitutional amendment that may significantly affect the voting opportunities of college students, renters who move frequently, and others who for one reason or another lack the prescribed documents. At first it seems reasonable to require that you show a government-issued photo ID to prove who you are when you show up to vote. But proving who you are is only part of it. Proving where you live using government-issued ID is often the more difficult part.

Few college students have a driver’s license listing the college campus as their official residence. Instead it still lists their parents’ address in Duluth, Minneapolis, International Falls and so on. Of course students can apply for absentee ballots, or travel to their parents’ home on Election Day, or pay for a new driver’s license with new address before the old one has expired. But few will realize this until it is too late. Voting rates among college students would plummet if on Election Day they had to produce government-issued photo ID listing the address of their college residence.
Minnesota election law does not require this. Instead students living on campus can use university-issued photo IDs to vote if their university has provided the county with student residency information. Students living off-campus may use utility bills to prove residency or have someone registered in the district personally vouch for where they live.

What will happen to college students and others in comparable circumstances if the Voter ID amendment passes?

Everything depends on how the legislation implementing the amendment is written. Nothing in the actual text of the amendment rules out multiple types of photo identification and multiple methods of documenting residency, as under current law.

Voter impersonation could be prevented without burdening legitimate voters.

But many advocates of the proposed amendment push legislation that would impose significant new obstacles for college students and others with new addresses.

The Voter ID bill vetoed last year by Gov. Mark Dayton would have required government-issued photo ID with birth date and current address in the precinct — all on the same card. The bill specifically prohibited the use of student photo ID cards. A valid driver’s license showing a different address was invalid documentation for voting. Individuals could apply in advance for special Voter ID cards issued free of charge, but would have to apply for new cards every time they moved — perhaps even from one dormitory to another.

The real costs here are time costs: a bureaucratic obstacle course that imposes far-greater burdens on some voters than others.

Advocates claim such measures are necessary to prevent voter fraud. Yet a 2012 Carnegie-Knight investigation found only 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide since 2000, and none in Minnesota. How many thousands of legitimate voters are we willing to burden to prevent one rare (or nonexistent) case of impersonation?

Real election fraud — the kind that changes outcomes — happens when ballot boxes disappear, vote counts are falsely reported or voters of a certain race or political persuasion are prevented from voting. Fraud of that type has occurred often in U.S. history. Voter ID does nothing to prevent it.
I will vote “no” on this amendment. But the amendment itself is only Round One. If it passes, Round Two — how elected officials write the implementing legislation — immediately begins. Those who value the equal right of all citizens to vote should contact elected officials and candidates in both parties to insist that our election laws safeguard that right.

MPR's Kerri Miller to moderate panel at Saint John's on religion and politics on October 25

MPR’s Kerri Miller to moderate panel at Saint John’s on religion and politics

COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. – Minnesota Public Radio host Kerri Miller will be the moderator for the panel program “Religion and Politics in Today’s America: An Interfaith Conversation” at 8 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 25, in the Stephen B. Humphrey Theater at Saint John’s University.

Pastor Leith Anderson, Imam Makram Nu’Man El-Amin, the Rev. Bill Vos and Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman will be the panelists. 

The program, jointly sponsored by the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at Saint John’s University and the Jay Phillips Center for Interfaith Learning, is free and open to the public.

“Religious ideas and convictions have had an historic and important role in shaping political discourse, elections and public policy,” said Matt Lindstrom, director of the McCarthy Center. “This year’s political campaigns at the national and state levels are no different as religious leaders and faith communities play myriad roles.” 

According to John Merkle, director of the Jay Phillips Center, “the panelists will discuss how their religious faith influences their political ideas and commitments, the impact this election season is having on their faith communities and how they deal with apparent and real contradictions or tensions in their religion’s sacred texts and traditions concerning issues found in contemporary politics.”

Miller is host of MPR’s weekday news program “The Daily Circuit.” She has been a radio and television news reporter since 1981 and joined MPR in 2004.

Anderson is president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He served as senior pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minn., from 1977 until 2011.

El-Amin is resident imam of Masjid An-Nur Minneapolis. He is co-founder of the Muslim American Society of Young Adults.

Vos, a priest of the Diocese of St. Cloud, is director of Catholic Relief Services for central Minnesota and chair of the board of directors of Maryknoll Lay Missioners.

Zimmerman has been the senior rabbi of Temple Israel in Minneapolis since 2001, where she holds the Alvin and June Perlman Senior Rabbinic Chair.

Griffin '09 Moots for Her Majesty

Barry Griffin (Class of '09), a law student at King's College in London, was one of four top students who had the pleasure to moot — participating in a simulated court proceeding — for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. As part of her diamond jubilee celebrations, the Queen was on hand to formally open Somerset House, the new home of King's College School of Law.
Griffin served as president of the law school's Bar Society and is currently president of The Bahamas Law Students' Association.

Letter: SJU students' spirit at caucus encouraging

The Republican caucus of Collegeville precincts 1 and 2 was held Feb. 7 at St. John’s University, with standing room-only attendance.
It was refreshing and encouraging to see some 40 St. John’s students of Precinct 2 enthusiastically participating and volunteering to be precinct officers and delegates to the next level. Several of these young men spoke in support of candidates, participated in the discussion of platform issues, and interacted in a positive way with the 20 community residents present.
This was a great example of making quality intergenerational connections. I commend these young men for taking the time to become involved in this grass-roots process, and encourage them to continue to be active.


Written by
Bill Lewis
Cold Spring

8 CSB/SJU students, professor volunteer for roadside cleanup

Eight students from the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, along with Professor Matt Lindstrom, director of the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at St. John’s, volunteered for the center’s first roadside cleanup. The McCarthy Center recently adopted a 3.2-mile stretch of highway south of Avon. The cleanup was Oct. 9. The McCarthy Center will invite members of the CSB/SJU community to participate in this cleanup again each spring and fall. Photo submitted by Melissa DeOrio, Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement Written by
Submitted by Melissa DeOrio
Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement


Filed Under
Citizen Times
College Of St. Benedict
Eight students from the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, along with Professor Matt Lindstrom, director of the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at St. John’s, volunteered for the center’s first roadside cleanup. The McCarthy Center recently adopted a 3.2-mile stretch of highway south of Avon. The cleanup was on Oct. 9. The McCarthy Center will invite members of the CSB/SJU community to participate in this roadside cleanup again each spring and fall.
EmailPrintShare LinkedIn Tumblr StumbleUpon Reddit Del.icio.us Digg AA

FactCheck.org founder spends week at SJU

Written by
Mark Sommerhauser
msommerhauser@stcloudtimes.com

Like to follow politics through blogs, Facebook and Twitter?

Use of these and other social-networking platforms may encourage voters to type first and think later, a political expert with Central Minnesota ties said Tuesday.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson directs the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and helped found FactCheck.org, a pioneering website that scrutinizes statements made by politicians in ads and debates.
Jamieson this week is a scholar-in-residence at the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at St. John’s University. That puts Jamieson in familiar territory, as she’s a 1964 graduate of St. Benedict’s High School in St. Joseph.

Few dispute that social-networking platforms have had a growing influence on politics in recent years.

That’s not necessarily bad, Jamieson said in a Tuesday afternoon interview with the Times. Such platforms help people connect with each other, and help them aggregate political information.

But they also may foster a climate in which observers continually comment on political speeches or debates, without pausing to consider or digest what politicians are actually saying, Jamieson suggested. She questioned how this could affect “our capacity for thoughtful citizenship and reflective engagement.”
Politics also is being changed by the emergence of technology to individualize Internet advertising, Jamieson added. That could occur when advertisers use a person’s Internet-surfing history to tailor political emails or ads to that individual.

The result: Different voters hear different political messages — and perhaps, different promises. That’s not necessarily a problem if the claims are accurate — but could be if they’re not, Jamieson said.

“Nothing in the media structure is set to capture these messages, to provide a forum to debunk them,” Jamieson said.

Jamieson also stressed the importance of educating high school students on civics — and on how to distinguish when a politician is telling the truth or when they’re fibbing. Increasing emphasis on core subjects like math and reading mustn’t displace such education, Jamieson said.

“It’s also important,” she said, “that we haven’t crowded an understanding of civics out of our curriculum.”

Denis McDonough

Denis McDonough is the National Security Council's chief of staff and one of President Obama's closest advisers. Mr. McDonough is reportedly so close to the president that colleagues — even his superiors — often do not make a major move without first checking with him.

Mr. McDonough is well known for picking up the phone to take people to task, from reporters to Washington talking heads to other Obama officials who go off message. He has berated some of the Democratic Party's most distinguished foreign policy dignitaries when they have dared to critique Mr. Obama publicly.

Mr. McDonough began his Capitol Hill career as an aide to the House International Relations Committee, where he focused on Latin America. He went on to work for Tom Daschle, the former South Dakota senator and former Senate majority leader, rising to senior foreign policy adviser, and became legislative director for Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado after Mr. Daschle's re-election defeat. He was then a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic-leaning policy organization, before joining the Obama campaign.

During the campaign, Mr. McDonough took on the role of Mr. Obama's foreign policy guru. He helped synthesize the contributions of some 300 foreign policy advisers, divided into teams based on regions and issues, to assist Mr. Obama in formulating and articulating his foreign policy. Mr. McDonough was often dispatched to brief reporters about Mr. Obama's positions.

His work during the campaign sealed his role as Mr. Obama's most trusted foreign policy aide in the White House.

He was born Dec. 2, 1969, in Stillwater, Minn. He graduated from St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., and has a master's from Georgetown University.

Parker Rosen, LLC Announces Mark Kennedy as Senior Strategic Adviser

January 14, 2011 11:22 AM Eastern Time
Parker Rosen, LLC Announces Mark Kennedy as Senior Strategic Adviser
Former Congressman Adds Depth to the Firm’s International Public Affairs Practice
MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Minneapolis-based law firm Parker Rosen, LLC, (www.parkerrosen.com), announced today the addition of Mark Kennedy as a Senior Strategic Adviser. Kennedy brings a broad background in business, public service and global initiatives to his role at Parker Rosen, a firm well known for its involvement in Minnesota politics, civic activities and public affairs in addition to its winning tradition in the courtroom representing local, national and international business clients.
“I’m thrilled to be joining Parker Rosen,” says Kennedy. “I’ve long admired the wise counsel and winning results of the firm, its commitment to its clients and its active involvement in bringing people together through its community and public affairs work.”
In his role at Parker Rosen, Kennedy will focus his practice on assisting clients with global public affairs strategy and international conflict resolution matters. Kennedy is also Chief Executive Officer of Chartwell Strategic Advisors, LLC where he applies his experience in both business and government to help clients achieve success in the increasingly globalized and competitive world.
According to Parker Rosen Co-founder, Andrew Parker, “Mark shares our belief that law firms must be focused on results and that achieving results requires expert advice. Mark’s experience in global business and government will help Parker Rosen continue to achieve the results that our clients need and expect in the ever-evolving environment of business and the law.”
Prior to joining Parker Rosen and forming Chartwell Strategic Advisors, Kennedy was in a global role with Accenture, a leading management consulting firm. He represented Minnesota in the United States House of Representatives for three terms from 2001 through 2007. Kennedy also served as a Presidential appointee to the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiation under both Presidents Bush and Obama (2007 – 2010). Prior to his service in Congress, Kennedy held leadership roles with some of the area’s largest employers, including Pillsbury, Macy’s and ShopKo (then a subsidiary of SUPERVALU). Trained as a Certified Public Accountant, Kennedy was recognized by Institutional Investor in a feature on America’s Top CFOs.
An active speaker, Kennedy has also founded or co-founded three lecture series: the Minnesota Rough Riders, the Frontiers of Freedom Lecture Series at St. John’s University and the Economic Club of Minnesota (www.ecomn.org). He will continue to speak before civic, government, student and business groups in his role at Parker Rosen.
Kennedy is a graduate of St. John’s University and received his Master’s in Business Administration with distinction from the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. He and his wife, Debbie, live in Watertown, Minnesota.
Parker Rosen, LLC (www.parkerrosen.com) is a Minneapolis-based law firm that represents select major corporations, small businesses, and other private and institutional clients in complex civil and commercial litigation, labor and employment litigation and investigations, eminent domain, real estate, and land use law, appellate advocacy, education law and, international law and public affairs. The firm looks to make a difference – in legal matters within the Twin Cities market and throughout the world – by bringing people with diverse backgrounds together to build a unified community.

DeLand column: Is there economic logic to a stadium?

DeLand column: Is there
economic logic to a stadium?

January 23, 2011

When Joe Friedrich looks at the issue from a
professional standpoint, it doesn’t make a whole lot
of sense.

What would be the financial benefit to Minnesota
taxpayers of paying for the majority of a new
stadium for the Minnesota Vikings? The economist
in Friedrich will tell you there really is none.

“Economists — except for those who have a vested
interest — pretty much cannot really find a
benefit/cost analysis to support a publicly financed
stadium, to the state or the government interest that
pays for it,” said Friedrich, a St. Cloud resident and
professor emeritus of economics at St. John’s
University and the College of St. Benedict (he retired
18 months ago).

“On the standpoint of strictly economic costs to the
state, I literally can’t find a study that comes up with
a positive return.”

But when Joe Friedrich the native Minnesotan or Joe
Friedrich the lifelong sports fan looks at the same
issue ... well, it’s not so cut-and-dried.

“The Vikings certainly add a lot of excitement,”
Friedrich said. “They do contribute to the spirit of
the state. Think of yourself and all the other people
for whom it’s a very real part of their life.”

Central Minnesotans who stand on divergent sides
of this issue will have the opportunity to talk about
it with Friedrich and others on Thursday.

The Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and
Civic Engagement is hosting a discussion titled “
Your Taxes & Sports Stadiums: The Minnesota
Vikings” as part of its Politics & A Pint series.

The forum begins at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Brother
Willie’s Pub in Sexton Commons on the SJU campus,
and the public is invited to hear Friedrich’s
economic insights on the issue.

“I’m just going to give 5-10 minutes of the ‘this is
the economic cost/benefit’ reality,” Friedrich said.
“I’m sure there’ll be a bunch of people there with
assertions. I intend to mostly ask questions back.”
The stadium issue is one that generates a lot of
emotions and a lot of passion, one way or the other.
However, economists aren’t supposed to operate on
emotion: They’re supposed to work with facts.


And according to Friedrich and other economists,
paying for a stadium doesn’t make much financial
sense to the general public. The return on other
investments — like, say, pre-kindergarten education
— is much higher.

But that doesn’t get you a football team ...

“There’s a lot of other reasons why you might want
to build a stadium,” Friedrich said. “But if you were t
alking strictly dollar-and-cents type of arguments, I
think the case is pretty clear that publicly financed
stadiums cost the public more than they benefit.

“It’s not just the Vikings — it’s just about
everybody. That’s the reason I said I couldn’t find
an economist who had a different opinion who was
an independent. (You’d have to) tell a story that’s
not false, but doesn’t tell the whole story.”

Does a new Vikings stadium make sense in other
respects? That question will be tossed around on
Thursday, and it’ll have to be answered before the
state legislature moves forward on this issue.

“The bottom line here is the state of Minnesota is
hardly in a position to be taking on too many
endeavors right now,” Friedrich said. “The
opportunity cost of a new Vikings stadium is
significant.”

In economist lingo, “opportunity cost” is what you
give up to get something else. And with a looming
$6.2 billion state budget deficit, that’s an issue.

On the other hand, Friedrich — a lifelong sports fan
— understands other viewpoints.

“I’m the kind of sports fan who in 1954 picked the
closest (major league) team to Minnesota — the
Milwaukee Braves — and has kept the Milwaukee
Braves as his team through their transfer to Atlanta,”
he said. “My favorite football team was the Baltimore
Colts — and they of course moved.”

Stadium proponents would argue that without a new
stadium, the Vikings eventually will do the same
thing.

“You try to ascertain from people, in a way that’s
truthful, how much they would pay for that benefit.
If there wasn’t the sport here, how much would you
pay to have that benefit?” Friedrich said.

“It’s environmental economics — what are the
amenity values? It’s really hard to do. But there are
methods in economics that do some of the
benefit/cost analysis.”


Proponents also tout the economic stimulus —
7,500 on-site construction jobs, by the Vikings’
estimate — that building a new stadium would
provide, and Friedrich says that might have some
value.

“Now is probably the best time,” he said. “If you had
7,500 workers you had to get away from other
construction sites, and if you had to buy concrete
away from other sites, that would bid up the price.
But right now, it’s likely there’s a lot of excess
supply in the construction industry. There is a small
gain.

“But if you spend $900 million for a domed stadium,
how much of that is really additional and how much
is just workers moving from one site to another?”

Whether public financing for a new Vikings stadium
makes economic sense or not, it’s Friedrich’s
opinion that it eventually will happen.

“I think when push comes to shove, something will
be worked out,” Friedrich said. “They’ll cobble
together a set of taxes and fee charges that fall on
people that use the facility.

“‘Use’ can be a very vague word. What they’ll try to
say is people who get the benefit from this stadium
should pay for it.

“I think at the end of the day, a stadium will be
constructed that will somehow be funded — at least
orally — by those who benefit from it. Of course,
there’ll be infrastructure expenses.”

Even if that doesn’t happen, and the Vikings do
leave Minnesota, Friedrich’s economic background
tells him the state would survive without them.

“Sid Hartman once commented that without the
Vikings, Minneapolis would be a cold Omaha,”
Friedrich said. “Well, Omaha was just listed as one
of the 10 best places in the world to live.”

But most Minnesotans would prefer that the Vikings
stayed. And not everybody uses everything that the
state government pays for.

“That’s why we tax people — everybody can say,
‘Oh, that doesn’t mean anything to me’,” Friedrich
said. “There are things in life that are not really
easily translated into dollars and cents.”

When an economist says that, you can take it to the
bank.

This is the opinion of Times sports editor Dave
DeLand. Contact him at 255-8771 or by e-mail at
ddeland@stcloudtimes.com.