How They See It, December 7, 2014

1. The New York Times

A substantial part of the problem with Hagel's performance is that the mission changed after his appointment. He was selected to oversee a shift to a peace-time military and reduced defence spending. To his credit, Hagel was committed to carrying out Obama's policy of greater American military, diplomatic and economic engagement in Asia and spent considerable time focused on that priority. But the US is now back at war in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan … A more aggressive defence secretary who has Obama's full confidence and ear may be able to better deal with chaos and war on these fronts. But, ultimately, it is Obama who will have to set the course with a more coherent strategy. New York

2. The Telegraph

The irony of his [Hagel's] dismissal is that, having initially been given the job because he shared Obama's opposition to the Iraq war, Hagel had become a staunch advocate of decisive military action to curb the mounting threat posed by Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. His view that Islamic State, as he remarked in August, represented an "imminent threat to every interest we have" in the Middle East put him at odds with the Obama administration's deep-seated aversion to becoming embroiled in messy, overseas conflicts … Obama might think it good politics to avoid military confrontation, but America's enemies are more likely to regard it as a sign of increasing impotence. London