Israel Lobby - The Atlantic - Washington Roundup - Steve Clemons

David Rothkopf , CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

Personally, I think the president would be better off selecting Michele Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. She, in her work as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, her leadership at CNAS, and her prior work in the Defense Department during the Clinton Administration has proven herself to be an innovative thinker, a genuine student of strategy, tactics and emerging trends in international defense and a leader in the national security community.

She represents fresh perspectives, the voice of a rising generation of leaders and is well placed to help lead the transformation that our defense establishment must go through over the next decade. Hagel would be an excellent candidate and a good Secretary of Defense. She would, I think, be a better one.

Jeffrey Laurenti , Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

The next four years will be crucial for adapting the US military force structure to the profoundly changed international relations of the 21st century. Hagel is one of the rare individuals who can navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of congressional passions, budgetary realities, and global commitments.

Foreign Policy

No matter what he does in terms of overall Middle East policy, the Hagel nomination gives Barack Obama an opportunity to strike a blow for a more open discourse on these important issues. If he nominates Hagel, he will demonstrate that reasonable people can disagree about certain aspects of U.S. Middle East policy, and that U.S. policymakers do not have to slavishly kowtow to AIPAC's hardline.

If Obama caves to the Israel lobby yet again, he will ensure the failure of his efforts to restore the U.S. position in the region and to prevent Israel from becoming an apartheid state. And his own legacy will be tarnished, perhaps irretrievably.

David Boaz , Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As Chris Preble says, I hope "that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions." And maybe even that, as a midwestern conservative, he'll advise against military actions undertaken without congressional authorization, such as President Obama's intervention in Libya.

We need to finish getting out of two decade-long wars, avoid new ones, and chart a foreign policy for a changed world. I hope that Hagel could help move the administration and the country in the direction of prudent and realistic policies, and sensible reductions in our vastly increased military budget.

, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I am struck by the criticism that has not appeared, or at least not in places that I have seen. For example, no one is criticizing him for what I would consider more serious problems such as being in the pocket of particular defense contractors, having a jingoistic attitude on foreign policy issues and determination to use the US military as a global police force or quasi-imperial tool of American hegemony.

Hagel's balanced, reasoned approach and integrity are his strong suits and no one has challenged them in a convincing way. Nor has anyone tried, except with the charge of being anti-Israel (the most important requirement for a SECDEF is that he/she be pro-American) and the charge of homophobia.Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Look, we all know perfectly well what this furor is about. It is another instance of a springing into action of elements that are so determined to prevent any significant questioning of destructive Israeli policies, or of U.S. tolerance of those policies, that they will use whatever means necessary including, as in this case, the slandering of a distinguished public figure to try to keep such questioning from being uttered by anyone in high public office and to keep from office those who look like they may actually raise such questions.

With Hagel there is the added dimension involving some of the same elements that he is seen as a turncoat for acknowledging that the Iraq War was a disastrous mistake and for endorsing Obama. Otherwise this is a replay of what was done a few years ago to Chas Freeman. Given the salience of the campaign against Hagel, as , there is now more at stake than just who will head the Department of Defense for the next four years. The issue is one of whether this kind of intimidation and the scurrilous tactics that go along with it will be allowed to prevail.