So why are Republicans opposing a fellow Republican to become Secretary of Defense?

Compare Senator Hagel's thinking in 2002 to Republican thinking in 2002 on Iraq.

"If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism and a bit more humility... Imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task."

Compare that above to biggest cheerleader at the time.

Iraq's uncertain future, as opposed to its totalitarian present, has become the principle [sic] concern of many realists. "What comes after a military invasion?" Senator Chuck Hagel would like to know. "Who rules Iraq? Does the United States really want to be in Baghdad, trying to police Baghdad for twenty or thirty years?" ... Predictions of ethnic turmoil in Iraq are even more questionable than they were in the case of Afghanistan. Unlike the Taliban, Saddam has little support among any ethnic group, Sunnis included, and the Iraqi opposition is itself a multi-ethnic force...

[T]he executive director of the Iraq Foundation, Rend Rahim Francke, says, "we will not have a civil war in Iraq. This is contrary to Iraqi history, and Iraq has not had a history of communal conflict as there has been in the Balkans or in Afghanistan..."

Who was right 10 years later? Republicans do not want reminder on why their foreign policy was so bad.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/wh...

EDIT

Many Republicans need to like Hagel. What is weird the about face?

"Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lavished praise Friday on Sen. Chuck Hagel and said many of his warnings about the Iraq war have been validated.

“Many of the predictions Chuck Hagel made about the war came true,” the Kentucky senator said in a brief interview after his remarks at a fundraising reception.

“They have proven to be accurate.”

Hagel’s views on the war “have not diminished his effectiveness,” McConnell said, and may, in fact, increase his effectiveness over time.

Hagel warned against a U.S. attack against Iraq without broad international support and careful planning for the aftermath. Most recently, he has opposed President Bush’s increase in U.S. troops while supporting changes in the U.S. military mission and gradual withdrawal of most combat troops."

http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politic...

After that assessment in 2007 from Senator McConnell, what changed?

Because many Republicans don't like Chuck Hagel.

It's kind of naive to assume that all Republicans like/support every Republican out there, just like it is naive to assume all Democrats like/support every Democrat out there. People are different.

By the way, you are basically saying that Republicans are not allowed to disagree with what their party supports, which is ironic since you are attempting to chastise Republicans for not allowing Chuck Hagel to disagree with what his party supports.

They lost the election.

They got nothing better to do for the next 4 years except WHINE and MOAN about EVERY decision Obama makes............even when he actually picks one of THEM for a coveted post........

they don't want it to seem that Obama is actually WORKING with them..........

they'd rather whine........so, anyone who AGREES to work with Obama, like Chris Christie, or Hagel......is labeled a TRAITOR, and "Not really republican."

If Obama appointed nothing BUT Republicans, they still wouldn't be happy.

Obama could make Mitt Romney the new SOS or head of the CIA, and they still wouldn't be happy.

Obama did it.

It doesn't matter what Obama does, Republicans will oppose it kicking and screaming. They'd like to focus on putting our country back together, but they don't want Obama and the Democrats to get credit for putting our country back together even more. Therefore, they will block whatever the president proposes and hold the country hostage until Americans put a Republican in the White House again.

I don't know why they always pick a Republican for that position and not a Democrat.

Because He was Chosen by a Democratic President that They don't want to give "Credit" -for giving the "Time of Day"- to !! :(

Same as why Republicans were fighting Republicans on Sandy aid. It's not unusual. Happens to Dems, too.

If you love America --you do NOT want Hagel as SecDef.

No matter WHAT your party affiliation.

Because Obama nominated him.

Republican does not necessarily equal conservative.... BIG difference.