It's a bizarre formulation in the first place. Who would want to be in the mainstream in Washington in the first decade of the 21st century? Shouldn't all of them be running away from their previous disastrous judgments – I mean McCain and Butters and Lieberman and Cornyn et al. I was for a bit and then realized the true scale of my misjudgment. How could you not as tens of thousands of Iraqis died under US control? As the US squandered a core element of its soft power by copying the torture techniques of totalitarian regimes? As the end-result was an Iraq on the edge of sectarian collapse and a strengthened Iran? As we now realize that the longest war in American history in Afghanistan will have, at best, a compromised conclusion. So it seems to me a plus if Hagel is out of that particular mainstream. It's a feature, not a bug.
Greg Djerejian goes further, in a splendid bloggy rant. Money quote:
I believe skepticism about a military adventure in Iran is eminently “mainstream”. Indeed, I would go further, and would think that fuller consideration of a “containment” doctrine vis-à-vis Iran should be “mainstream” too—if ultimately diplomacy and sanctions were to run aground, only leaving potentially less desirable military options, and as done with arch-foes in the past of far greater geopolitical strength than Iran (even if the President has ostensibly removed this policy option from the table). I believe skepticism about unilateral Iran sanctions—as compared to the multilateral variety that Hagel more typically has supported—is “mainstream” and indeed, far more intelligent, as unilateral sanctions can be avoided with ease and so have materially less bite. I believe looking to aggressively haircut the, yes, “bloated” Pentagon budget is “mainstream”, especially in this era of mammoth deficits and looming austerity.
The Dish 