The complete following article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/ret.powell.divisions/ I found the 2nd paragraph very interesting: "Secretary of State Colin Powell is pushing for a limited military component in this self-declared war against terrorism and instead wants to place more emphasis on less traditional "tools" in the United States arsenal -- financial, political, diplomatic and legal, according to several senior State Department officials familiar with the department's planning." I guess I say it is surprising because Colin Powell comes from the military establishment as opposed to the diplomatic establishment.
The US may be looking at a new way of fighting the Taliban. See some of the articles posted in this thread: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22317
<B>Wasn't there a story that he was not as aggressive in Desert Storm as some of his colleagues?</B> Yeah -- everything I heard was that Schwartkopf (?) wanted to conduct a ground war, while Powell pushed for the more limited campaign.
As much as I like and respect Powell, I don't think a limited campaign is the way to go. I thought we learned our lesson in Vietnam. A limited military just leads to an inneffective military and more casualties of American soldiers.
Mr Secretary of State 1. He likes to win. He is very competitive but he has been known throughout his career as a guy who takes the path of least resistence when it comes to confrontation. This does necessarily mean he is a woossy, or unsuccessful, just maybe more passive aggressive than we have been used to in a military personage at State. 2. He is smart. Not only academically, but also very well educated in the complexities of international relations. That's why he is who he is. 3. He is a startegistist. Maybe he's not as trustworthy in a military sense as say Swartzy was, but he likes to have a plan with a limited action (involvement), then adjust to the reaction (response) by the opponent. (Swartzy's biggest complaint of him,BTW, if you have not read his book.) 4. He is a realist. In the truest sense of the word. He knows an all out preemptive strike on foreign soil may give the terrorist factions the edge in world opinion, and in the long run ... such an attack may risk whatever chance we have in bringing justice to where/who it is needed. 5. He is liked in world politics. He is unique. Abroad he is seen either as a hawk in dove's clothing, or a dove in hawk's clothing. Regardless, he has respect and not a little fear for his ability to "cut to the chase" and complete the mission. 6. Above all he is seen as a pragmatic yet thoughtful statesman. He is believeable and his words carry weight. Rusk was merely a messenger during his most important tenure. Kissinger remained a feared but soft handed backstabber til the end. Albright had no respect at all, despite being overworked. But Powell is liked and respected for the limited stance he has presented so far. Maybe as much for his ability to dodge so many political minefields to get where he is, and STILL maintain his integrity, as anything else. Powell's statements are most likely dropped here and there in the press to leave a door open for the fence sitters in this three act play. There are a lot that want to know just how much damage Georgie wants to do. And where. But when this administration commits itself, Colin Powell will be the one spearheading the allied stance abroad. Powell will be the one going to the neighbors assuring them that they will try to keep the music down at the party. he'll be the one inviting them to join the backyard barbeque if they feel inclined. He will be the smooth but firm talker who answers the door when the local police arrive after a domestic complaint.
OP- Thanks for the insights. I really have wanted to read Swrz's book but never got around to it. Colin Powell is a great leader who I sincerely think will not only be leading our military, but if (when) he wants will be the commander-in-chief.
pops, Would you vote for him for Prez? I think I would (Even though I disagree with him on this particular statement).
Here's my problem with Colin Powell: Where was he with regard to Gulf War syndrome? He had no problem taking credit for the big military victory, but when the people who put him in the position to take credit started turning up sick, he didn't say a word -- not to be an advocate for them, not to ask questions publicly, not to console them, and certainly not to take responsibility. He was nowhere to be found. I'm not sure if that's the kind of guy I want to be President. I mean, when you think about it, isn't his main qualification the fact that he gave a helluva press conference?
I wouldn't be critical if Bush had the type of balanced approach some of you are criticizing Powell for. Maybe Powell is just on a gut level more concern about the loss of military life than Bush. Powell spent I believe at least 30 years in the military and came from the type of class background where friends were probably killed in Vietnam. Bush avoided Vietnam. Everyone wanted to get into the national guard then to avoid the Vietnam War. Most didn't have the connections to do so. That is why Dan Quayle was ialso in the national guard, too.
Being in the National Guard during war time is certainly not a disgrace. He fulfilled his commitment (implied via U.S. citizenship) to his country. By the way, I notice that you mentioned Quayle and Bush using the Guard to avoid Viet Nam. Didn't Clinton avoid the draft and not even serve in any branch of the armed forces (including the Guard)?
Actually, this is untrue. The schism between Powell and Condoleeza Rice can be traced to his disagreements with Realist foreign policy. I know it's possible you meant "practical" instead of the political science use of the word, and if so, you're right. But when discussing international relations, opponents of Realism would dub it anythign but practical. Powell is too inclined for a philanthropic foreign policy for many Realists. I think Powell's more of a Functionalist with Realist-leanings than anything else. I really hope that Powell wins out in the hawkish Bush administration. The Clinton administration did a great deal to repair the image of the US as a rogue vigilante on the world scene. There's no way the US will maintain enough power to enforce it's will unilaterally in the 21st century. The UN must be the primary institution enforcing international security. If we're not willing to make that commitment, but expect others to do so, we're not only fools, but hypocrites as well. From what Powell's written, it looks like he might understand that. I hope he convinces the rest of the Bush administration of that truth, but it looks doubtful.
Clinton was in college during the time when he could have served. In fact he went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
<i> "....The Clinton administration did a great deal to repair the image of the US as a rogue vigilante on the world scene......"</i> They went too far the other way in Somalia and that needlessly cost some Rangers their lives. <A HREF="http://www.netnomad.com/powell.html">Report on Somalia action</A> Mango
Actually, Mango... I don't think the Clinton administration went far enough. Unilateral action was still the rule, but at least they tried to involve the UN and build coalition's based on more equal principles. I fail to see how Somalia has much to do with this.
Personally, I wish Powell was the President. The report in the NYT didn't go as far as some reports I have seen who have linked the minority, conservative stance led by the Secretary of Defense to a long-held feeling that we should have gone after Sadaam in the Gulf War before pulling out. Some still believe there is unfinished business there. Powell is acting prudently and wisely in this situation. If we truly want to irradicate terroism and protect the citizens of the US, the way to do that is to protect the coalition they are building and strongly insulate it from attacks. The only way to do that is to take concrete but SLOW steps. We go to fast, we risk destroying all the good work we've done building an unprecendented coalition of friends AND enemies in a united cause. Go Powell!
Remember how Powell got criticized in the first few hours when he stated that Americans would seek "justice" instead of revenge or something akin to it? Now it seems many more are coming around to his point of view. He's a good man that Powell!!
First off, let me say that I both like and respect Powell, but he is letting the State pacifists get to him in this situation... In the Gulf War, Powell actually did not want to invade, but instead wait for sanctions to do the job. He was willing to wait a long, long time. In hindsight that would've been a stupid policy (sanctions flat don't work against Saddam), but when Bush Sr. gave the order Powell was 100% on board, as he will be in this situation. Schwartzkopf was very bitter about not having the support of the Chairman before the war, and even though Powell was a team player once the war started, Schwartzy kept a grudge... Powell is a perfect SecState, for all the reasons that op listed. Being a military man, and a Vietnam vet who was wounded in action and lost many friends in that conflict, he is leery of sending young men into battle. This makes him perfect for his current job, because State is inhabited primarily by pacifists. Normally, that's how you want it, but when there's a real need for a war, you don't want doves calling the shots. BTW, if anyone doesn't think we're going to hit Iraq and finally take Saddam out, just look at what we're deploying, and where we're deploying it. Most of it won't be used in Afghanistan...
If the government follows your advice, we're going to perpetuate an endless cycle of violence. Unilateralism and military action is a quick fix that can sometimes lead to even greater problems in the future.
