One of my favorites among the kings and queens of England is Ethelred II, the Unready. I believe it is quite admirable for royal historians to frankly admit that the person who ruled the realm after taking power in 1014 was “Unready” for the challenges of the British throne. We can laugh at such a historical footnote from 1,099 years ago, but the stumbling, mumbling and fumbling performance by Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week invites more serious concerns. Hagel’s pathetic “performance” in which he appeared distracted, contradictory and confused proves that he is not ready for prime time, let alone becoming Secretary of Defense for the next four years.

Hagel, 66, a former U.S. Senator from Nebraska and a decorated Vietnam veteran would be the first enlisted combat soldier to be Secretary of Defense, which is certainly a mark in his favor. President Barack Obama, following precedents established by other democratic presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Bill Clinton, has tapped a Republican former lawmaker for this sensitive post.

Even before Hagel’s name was formally put forward as Obama’s choice to be the civilian head of the Pentagon, I shared some serious concerns over Hagel’s frequent and troubling remarks about Israel, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. He complained about a “Jewish lobby” making senators do “dumb things” because they were “intimidated” the lobby’s pressures and clout. He later apologized for using the term “Jewish lobby,” but left his concerns about an “Israel lobby” on his record. He voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, even though they have attacked U.S. service personnel in Iraq. He urged the European Union not to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization and has called for “reaching out” to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Very real concerns regarding Hagel’s views on Israel, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah were expressed early in the process by both Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York, and Republicans, including Hagel’s one-time good friend Arizona Senator John McCain. After meeting privately with Hagel before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Schumer, a longtime stalwart supporter of a strong and positive U.S.-Israel relationship, announced that his concerns were alleviated and he was prepared to vote to confirm Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Hagel was no stranger to the chambers of the U.S. Senate in which he represented his home state for over a decade. He certainly knew that questions would arise about his views on Israel and Iran, and yet he stumbled over question after question. In the New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller reported, “There was dismay from Democrats and derision from Republicans about Mr. Hagel’s sometimes stumbling performance during seven and a half hours of testimony.”

Hagel’s demeanor did nothing to instill confidence that he was briefed on even the most pressing and serious issues he would confront as Secretary of Defense. When he answered questions on the Obama administration’s position of whether a nuclear-armed Iran could be “contained,” Hagel indicated that he supported the president’s position that favored containment. He was passed a frantic note pointing out that Obama has emphatically stated for the record that he is opposed to containment and committed to preventing a nuclear Iran. It was especially embarrassing that Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., had to publicly correct the nominee he was going to support, on this key and very present question on fundamental defense policy.

I have often disagreed with the foreign policy positions and records of various nominees to key Cabinet positions. I was clearly wrong to pre-judge George P. Schultz as being hopelessly “pro-Arab” because of his connection to the Bechtel Corp., which did extensive business with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. He turned out to be one of the most pro-Israel secretaries of state in history. I also had (and continue to have) disagreements with the views on Israel of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. But I never questioned the competency of either Schultz or Brzezinski. I was frankly shocked at how ill-informed and ill-prepared and even seemingly indifferent Hagel appeared in his responses to the committee of the Senate with which he will have to work extensively if confirmed.

Both outgoing and incoming secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry delivered stellar performances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Clinton was grilled extensively about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, but was unflappable and strong in her testimony.

At this writing it appears that Hagel has the votes to be confirmed, and this gives me great pause. If he proves me wrong and does well (and I sincerely hope he does, for the sake and safety of our nation), I am prepared to be among the first to state that I was wrong. At present, all I could do is hope that if confirmed his performance in office will be the opposite of his pathetic performance at the hearings.