Posted on 07/27/2002 9:28:24 PM PDT by Pokey78
It wouldn't be surprising if Colin Powell were daydreaming about the clout once exercised by secretaries of state like John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, men whose sway over American foreign policy was largely uncontested. Mr. Powell has been bested on a number of important issues in recent months by more conservative and ideological figures in the Bush administration. Like the good soldier and loyal adviser that he is, Mr. Powell has swallowed the defeats, defended the party line and turned to the next crisis. The administration, and the nation, would be better served if Mr. Powell's views prevailed more often. The time has come when he should not be so accommodating. He might even throw a tantrum or two.
Mr. Powell is not the first secretary of state to skirmish with other members of the national security team, whether at the Pentagon or in the White House. Richard Nixon's first secretary of state, William Rogers, was steamrollered by Mr. Kissinger, the national security adviser who eventually became secretary of state himself. Cyrus Vance fought a succession of policy battles in the Carter administration with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser. Mr. Vance resigned in protest over the botched attempt to use military force to rescue the United States Embassy hostages in Iran. During the Reagan years, George Shultz wrestled constantly with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger over how to handle the Soviet Union.
The sharks circling around Mr. Powell include Vice President Dick Cheney; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and the White House political director, Karl Rove. Mr. Rove is especially eager to bend policy to placate the Republican right.
Mr. Powell's most recent setback was last week's decision to cut off American financing for the United Nations Population Fund over China's compulsory abortion policies. Earlier, the White House reversed policies publicly advocated by Mr. Powell on issues ranging from North Korea to Iran to strategies for renewing Mideast peace negotiations.
There have been a few important victories for Mr. Powell, too, including the decision to make this year's nuclear reduction agreement with Russia a formal international treaty and a muting of the administration's early belligerence toward China.
Mr. Powell has some powerful advantages in internal debates that he ought not to be shy about using. The president needs him more than he needs the president. Mr. Powell is a Washington heavyweight — a former national security adviser, four-star Army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the architects of victory in the Persian Gulf war. Mr. Bush, a foreign-policy welterweight when he assumed the presidency, would be instantly diminished at home and abroad if Mr. Powell were no longer at his side. Reagan aides used to mock Mr. Shultz for his repeated threats to resign, but in the end he won the arguments over Soviet policy by confronting his opponents and persistently lobbying Mr. Reagan for a more constructive approach toward Moscow.
The Bush foreign policy agenda is filled with issues that Mr. Powell is ideally suited to address, including the ongoing war against terrorism, efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the pending decision about how to deal with Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush will need Mr. Powell's help if he hopes to secure international support for a confrontation with Iraq.
If Mr. Powell were on a winning streak, his conciliatory style might look more appealing. The measure of success for secretaries of state is not whether they loyally follow the lead of the president, but whether they guide foreign policy in directions that advance American interests abroad. Mr. Powell has the convictions and seasoning to be a great secretary of state, but he will not achieve that stature if he fails to stand his ground.
These NYT dudes aren't just living on another planet, they're in a completely alternate dimension.
Obviously nobody at the NYT ever served under little mac when he was leading troops.
I sometimes wonder if the NYT ever looks at a man's record, of course not, stupid me, it would ruin there preconceived notions about life and war.
Rove does just the opposite!
This piece of garbage should have had a barf allert attached to the title.
The NYT may have a knee-jerk problem. They
were pro-Israel until the Wars of Arab Repulsion
moved Israel from underdog to regional power.
Now that the Palestinians are underdogs, the NYT
forces its coverage into anti-Israel mode.
Is can be no surprise that they view Powell's
pro-Arab tilt to be just what the nation and
admnistration need. Contrarionism trumps
terrorism at the grey lady.
As to where we would be if Powell's
views prevailed, see below for a real
State Dept policy.
___________________________
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher explains why
blowing up Israelis different than blowing up Americans
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC; September 27, 2001
...
QUESTION: To what extent does this campaign -- as you constantly review your Middle East policy, what -- how much influence does this campaign against terrorism have in that? What's the input? How does it weigh in here? See what I mean?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
QUESTION: It's obviously a factor --
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about this on and off over the last few days. We recognize that there is an influence. Some have said it affects the atmosphere, the Palestinian/Israeli issues affect the atmosphere of cooperation. But, essentially, there are, on some planes, two different things. One is that there are violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, many others in the world. The world recognizes that and we are going to stop those people.
On the other hand, there are issues and violence and political issues that need to be resolved in the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians. But we all recognize that the path to solve those is through negotiation and that we have devoted enormous efforts to getting back to that path of negotiation.
And we have called on the parties to do everything they can, particularly in the present circumstance, to make that possible.
I guess that's about as close as I can come to the kind of sophisticated analysis I'm sure you will want to do on your own. But they are clearly issues that are different, not only in geography but also, to some extent, in their nature.
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
THE ENTIRE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR PRESIDENT!! Yeah, instead of one lonely man at the top, maybe we should try having a group presidency. Delivering the news while running the country. But then....they're already doing that aren't they?
Ummm... is this ever true?
Commentary: In my opinion, he should be conservative, pro-US, ... or resign.
Someone needs to point out to this doofus that we never elected Powell. We did however elect Dick Chency and George Bush.
George Bush as President appointed Powell Secretary of State. He didn't place a purple robe on him and annoint him head bastard and dictator for life, he appointed him as a manager and an ambassador to do the bidding of the Bush administration abroad as the President sees fit.
If the unelected Powell stomps his feet and has a hissy then Dubya is completely justified in firing him and replacing him with another manager and ambasador who will do the job the way Dubya, and by extention the people of the United States of America want it to be done.
Period.
What's more incredible is that this is supposed to be considered a bad thing.
I actually view it as a plus for Dubya if it's true.
Reign in State, make them do the job the way Dubya wants it done and then the Administration can either collect the kudos or take the lumps.
That's the way it's supposed to work anyhow. Where this idea of the Sec State being a loose cannon free to do as he see's fit comes from is beyond me.
The NY Times is signalling to Powell that he will enjoy similar rapturous media support if he publically distances himself from Bush. His previous toeing of the Administration's foreign policy line will be forgiven as Powell's way of trying to change things from within. And if he has to resign, the liberal media will annoint him as a hero for his brave and principled action.
While I am not a fan of Powell, I do give him much higher marks for integrity than I gave McCain. I don't think Powell will be sucked in quite so easily. But more than that, the reality is that Powell will end up looking like the goat rather than the hero if he resigns or openly disputes Bush. That's because the U.S. will be invading Iraq in the not-too-distant future, and Powell knows that better than anyone. If he resigned prior to the war, he'd look like a cowardly idiot once Saddam was disposed of. And if he stayed on as Secretary of State through a successful military campaign to achieve a "regime change", why would he ever resign instead of taking credit for his contribution to that effort?
Conclusion: the New York Times is spitting in the wind, trying to convince the wind that it would be heroic to change directions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.