Chuck Hagel grilled in Senate confirmation hearing

Defence Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel has sought to allay concerns that he is anti-Israel and soft on Iran, at a testy confirmation hearing.

The Senate armed services committee grilled Mr Hagel over his past remarks, with a fellow Republican labelling the nominee's record "deeply troubling".

The former Nebraska senator told the panel he could not be defined by any individual quote.

The hearing will lead to a final Senate vote on Mr Hagel's appointment.

Correspondents say he will probably be confirmed by the committee.

Although Democrats control the Senate, they may need Republican support to overcome procedural hurdles that could stop Mr Hagel's nomination.

Charm offensive

If confiAt Thursday's public hearing, Mr Hagel said he was "fully committed" to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, with "all options" on the table.

"I will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region," he added.

Mr Hagel also addressed criticism over a remark he made in a 2008 book that the "Jewish lobby" intimidates decision-makers on Capitol Hill.

"I've already said, I regret referencing the Jewish lobby," he told the hearing. "I should have said the pro-Israeli lobby."

Mr Hagel would be the only Republican in President Barack Obama's cabinet if the Senate confirms him to replace outgoing Defence Secretary Leon Panetta.

Before his hearing, he held one-on-one meetings with 53 senators.

But only one Republican senator, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, has publicly backed him.

Once the hearing was under way, the Republican National Committee sent a news release saying Mr Hagel was the wrong choice to lead the Pentagon.

At least three Republicans on the Senate armed services committee have said they do not support his nomination.

Heated exchange

One of those is Senator Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the panel, who said shortly after the hearing began: "Senator Hagel's record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream."

There was also a heated exchange between John McCain and the Pentagon nominee.

The Arizona senator took his fellow veteran to task over remarks he made once that the 2006 Iraq troop surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam".But Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee, said his concerns had been allayed.

"Senator Hagel's reassurance to me," Sen Levin said, "that he supports the Obama administration's strong stance against Iran is significant."

The hearing is the first time Mr Hagel has publicly addressed the criticism against him.

In the past, he has opposed the idea of a military strike by either the US or Israel against Iran. He has also advocated including Iran on future peace talks in Afghanistan.

His remarks in 1998 that a nominee for an ambassadorial post was "openly, aggressively gay" also raised eyebrows. Mr Hagel has since apologised for that comment.rmed, he would be the first enlisted man - and the first Vietnam veteran - to run the Pentagon.

U.S. may remove all troops from Afghanistan after 2014

The Obama administration is considering the possibility of removing all U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission officially finishes at the end of 2014, White House officials said Tuesday.

The comments by Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, come as the Pentagon and White House mull over the number of troops that could be left in Afghanistan after 2014 to fight insurgents and train Afghan security forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Obama are scheduled to meet on Friday in Washington.

Rhodes said the administration is considering a range of options, with one scenario having no U.S. troops there. The range, according to defense officials, had until recently been between 6,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops possibly remaining in the country, based on an assessment by the U.S. top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen.

"We have an objective of making sure there's no safe haven for al Qaeda within Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient, again, to assure the stability of the Afghan government and the denial of that safe haven," Rhodes said.

"That's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers or not having potential troops in the country," he continued.

Rhodes said there were no expectations of any deal on post-2014 troop levels during the Karzai visit, and he said it could be months before any decision was made.

The White House remains committed to ensuring Afghanistan does not return to its status as a safe haven for Al Qaeda, Rhodes said

"The president does not view these negotiations as having a goal of keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan," he said. "And we're guided by the shared missions that we've agreed to with the Afghans, the training and equipping of their forces, and counterterrorism."

But the United States also is insistent on legal protection for any troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

If there is no agreement on that between the United States and Karzai between now and the end of 2014, then it could lead to a similar situation for the United States as when it left Iraq.

The refusal by the Iraqi government to extend legal protections for U.S. troops after the end of the war in Iraq was a major reason the United States left the country with no residual military training force.

But Karzai has said he would like for U.S. troops to remain after the end of the NATO mission. He also has been highly critical of the troops over the years, following incidents in which U.S. forces have killed civilians.

Attack takes life of British soldier

U.S. defense officials are playing a wait-and-see game on what the Karzai visit will produce.

As one defense official told CNN on Monday about the Afghan president, "It's Karzai; who knows what he will want on any given day?"

Karzai visit a time for tough talk on security, corruption

Vanda Felbab-Brown is a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Her latest book is "Aspiration and Ambivalence: Strategies and Realities of Counterinsurgency and State-Building in Afghanistan."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting this week with President Obama in Washington amid increasing ambivalence in the United States about what to do about the war in Afghanistan.

Americans are tired of the war. Too much blood and treasure has been spent. The White House is grappling with troop numbers for 2013 and with the nature and scope of any U.S. mission after 2014. With the persisting corruption and poor governance of the Afghan government and Karzai's fear that the United States is preparing to abandon him, the relationship between Kabul and Washington has steadily deteriorated.

As the United States radically reduces its mission in Afghanistan, it will leave behind a stalled and perilous security situation and a likely severe economic downturn. Many Afghans expect a collapse into civil war, and few see their political system as legitimate.

Karzai and Obama face thorny issues such as the stalled negotiations with the Taliban. Recently, Kabul has persuaded Pakistan to release some Taliban prisoners to jump-start the negotiations, relegating the United States to the back seat. Much to the displeasure of the International Security Assistance Force, the Afghan government also plans to release several hundred Taliban-linked prisoners, although any real momentum in the negotiations is yet to take place.

Washington needs to be careful that negotiations are structured in a way that enhances Afghanistan's stability and is not merely a fig leaf for U.S. and NATO troop departure. Countering terrorism will be an important U.S. interest after 2014. The Taliban may have soured on al Qaeda, but fully breaking with the terror group is not in the Taliban's best interest. If negotiations give the insurgents de facto control of parts of the country, the Taliban will at best play it both ways: with the jihadists and with the United States.

Negotiations of a status-of-forces agreement after 2014 will also be on the table between Karzai and Obama. Immunity of U.S. soldiers from Afghan prosecution and control over detainees previously have been major sticking points, and any Afghan release of Taliban-linked prisoners will complicate that discussion.

Karzai has seemed determined to secure commitments from Washington to deliver military enablers until Afghan support forces have built up. The Afghan National Security Forces have improved but cannot function without international enablers -- in areas such as air support, medevac, intelligence and logistical assets and maintenance -- for several years to come. But Washington has signaled that it is contemplating very small troop levels after 2014, as low as 3,000. Their mission would most likely be limited to counterterrorism efforts.

Everyone is hedging their bets in light of the transition uncertainties and the real possibility of a major security meltdown after 2014. Afghan army commanders are leaking intelligence and weapons to insurgents; Afghan families are sending one son to join the army, one to the Taliban and one to the local warlord's militia.

Patronage networks pervade the Afghan forces, and a crucial question is whether they can avoid splintering along ethnic and patronage lines after 2014. If security forces do fall apart, the chances of Taliban control of large portions of the country and a civil war are much greater. Obama can use the summit to announce concrete measures -- such as providing enablers -- to demonstrate U.S. commitment to heading off a security meltdown. The United States and international security forces also need to strongly focus on countering the rifts within the Afghan army.

Assisting the Afghan army after 2014 is important. But even with better security, it is doubtful that Afghanistan can be stable without improvements in its government.

Afghanistan's political system is preoccupied with the 2014 elections. Corruption, serious crime, land theft and other usurpation of resources, nepotism, a lack of rule of law and exclusionary patronage networks afflict governance. Afghans crave accountability and justice and resent the current mafia-like rule. Whether the 2014 elections will usher in better leaders or trigger violent conflict is another huge question mark.

Emphasizing good governance, not sacrificing it to short-term military expediencies by embracing thuggish government officials, is as important as leaving Afghanistan in a measured and unrushed way -- one that doesn't jeopardize the fledgling institutional and security capacity that the country has managed to build up.

Karzai has been deaf and blind to the reality that reducing corruption, improving governance and allowing for a more pluralistic political system are essential for Afghanistan's stability. His visit provides an opportunity to deliver the message again -- and strongly.