Greets and saluts from the NYC metro area. While much of the ink and punditry are busy hashing out the ramifications of a Chuck Hagel nomination for Sec. Def., the President has announced John Brennan for DCI. That’s arguably a more important posting since the agency is in flux about its responsibilities and mission. Counterterrorism is currently perceived as the most important mission, but ongoing concerns about Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia require manpower and resources. Dealing with all those issues, and trying to stay ahead of the news (not being blindsided by acts like the Arab Spring, recognizing how feeble autocrats in the Middle East are, or how resilient some of those regimes are (Syria) despite the odds).

Brennan’s nomination seems to be the easier of the proposed nominations. Hagel’s nomination has generated lots of heat, particularly about his stance regarding Israel. Some of what his critics say about Hagel might actually be true, but does it matter? Hagel would not be in charge of diplomacy, that’s Sec. State. He would have to chart a course for the Defense Department - addressing manpower and equipment needs going forward. That means where and how to spend limited resources.

That means figuring out the right mix to deal with current and future threats. Regional stability in the ME plays into that, but the Hagel discussion about Israel is a smokescreen for other issues in play - namely that some on the right want to cast Obama as anti-Israel even though his policies to date have been anything but. Israel hasn’t been forced to negotiate against its will, Israel has been backed up by the US on missile defense (deploying Patriot systems, assistance with Iron Dome, etc.).

The questions that need to be put to Hagel in confirmation hearings are what he considers to be threats, the right mix on defense spending, the role of UAVs (and who should have their finger on the trigger - CIA or DoD, etc.), and how the US would deal with meeting its military commitments to our allies, one of which is Israel. He would have to address the drawdown in Afghanistan and what he perceives as threats to regional stability in places like Syria and Iran. Indeed, these are questions that Brennan would have to address as well.

Those are legitimate questions, and deserve scrutiny.