Posted on 09/08/2001 4:45:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
When Colin Powell emerged as George W Bush's secretary of state, interventionists on both the American right and left groaned.
This was the man who opposed the Gulf war, and who opposed even aerial intervention in the Balkans on the grounds that "no American president could defend to the American people the heavy sacrifice of lives it would cost to resolve this baffling conflict".
This was the man who opposed the only successful operation in Somalia (the brief initial invasion) but supported the humanitarian nation-building that led to disaster. He was also the man who had come closest of any general since Douglas MacArthur to dictating to his civilian commanders what they could and couldn't do.
When he faced the new and inexperienced President Clinton in 1993, Powell eviscerated Clinton's military authority as commander-in-chief - even to the point of publicly opposing the administration's policy of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
No doubt Powell believed that he could do the same with the even less experienced new President Bush. After all, he had a very strong hand. Powell had been instrumental in persuading nervous suburban voters in the election that Bush would not be running foreign policy alone.
Powell's racial background also helped give the administration a more inclusive face. Because of his history, reputation and celebrity, he was all but unsackable. And for the first time, Powell occupied the most senior foreign policy post in the administration.
With the media in his lap and widespread popular support, he clearly believed he would be the central architect of the new administration's foreign policy. And then reality struck. Early on, Powell simply asserted that the Bush administration would pick up where the Clinton administration had left off in dealings with North Korea.
Almost immediately, he was told this was not the new administration's policy. He had to trot out in front of the television cameras to recant. A sceptic of national missile defence (NMD), Powell had to sit back and watch the administration make it the top foreign policy priority.
With Russia, he soon found out that he was not going to have a key role. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, was dispatched for one-on-one meetings with Putin, and Bush himself pioneered the relationship.
On Iraq and the Middle East, Powell was equally isolated. His plans for weakening sanctions against Saddam were scotched; his desire to continue the Clinton administration's micro-management of the "peace process" faded into the more hands-off approach of Bush.
And then last week came the ultimate rebuff. For months, Powell had been extremely eager to go to Durban as a symbol of America's racial inclusion and commitment to combating racism. But as anti-Semites and bigots took over the conference, Bush sent a junior delegation instead and withdrew it as soon as it was clear no compromise was possible. Powell had been denied the mother of all photo-ops: preening as an ambassador of racial conciliation in South Africa. But if Powell had gone to Durban, he would have been humiliated.
The difference with 1993 couldn't be starker. Bush is no Clinton: he has strong views on foreign policy and has assembled an impressive team to check Powell's squishiness.
Dick Cheney is the most significant. He'd seen Powell in action during the Gulf war and, while respecting him, knew his limits. "You're not secretary of state," Cheney informed him once. "You're not the national security adviser any more. And you're not secretary of defence. So stick to military matters."
As vice-president, Cheney hired a hawkish Middle East aide, John Hannah, to correct Powell's Clintonian tendencies. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, snapped up Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith as right-hand men - both keen advocates of NMD and strong supporters of Israel. And they are flanked by the NMD enthusiast John Bolton as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
But the biggest surprise is Condi Rice. If anyone was supposed to be a front woman, it was Rice. Instead, she has used her personal rapport with Bush, developed over many years and honed as she prepped him on foreign policy during the campaign, into a major power base.
While Powell is ensconced in the State Department, several blocks from the White House, Rice is down the hallway from the president. She - not Powell - is the friend at the Crawford ranch. "A lot of this is personal chemistry," a top Bush aide said last week. "Condi and the president are very close. They're friends. He trusts her. That means a lot."
As Rice's stature grows, it also means another thing. Powell is eventually sackable. And a black, conservative woman could be his replacement.
In all this, liberal critics of the administration's robust realism in foreign affairs have become increasingly desperate. Whereas Powell was very much in the centre of George Bush Sr's centrist administration, he is now clearly isolated in the far more conservative regime of his son.
Will Powell come back? Many European diplomats hope so - especially the British Foreign Office. But on the critical issue of missile defence, there's no evidence it would make much difference anyway. Powell has expressed his enthusiasm for missile defence - a view he has clearly adopted to survive internally. But in many ways Bush has Powell exactly where he wants him. He can be used occasionally as a good cop in international affairs, soothing over ruffled feathers abroad, acting as a symbol of calm and moderation at home, while being essentially powerless in the real decision-making of the administration. Powell, naturally, doesn't see it this way and spins his precarious position well.
"Do you know how worse it would be without me?" he has allegedly quipped to friends. To which the Bushies quietly respond: "Keep believing that, Colin. Keep believing it."
A few more articles like this and I wouldn't put it past Powell to resign, staging it in whatever way he thinks will inflict the maximum political damage on Bush. Remember last year when Bush was openly hinting he would offer the Secretary of State position to Powell, and Powell made a comment about being willing to serve in a Gore administration.
Bingo! There's a definite correlation between neo-conservative, "interventionist", aggresive foreign policy and naked, raw hypocrisy. (America as the World's 'policeman'/global 'justice' enforcer, goes with the corollary; the Great White Father in Washington Always Knows Best). If the Pentagon/NATO/State Dept. War Party had any real sense of decency, they wouldn't be rushing to safeguard the security of the AMBO oil pipeline through Macedonia, with the cynical farce of an "arms collection" operation, that only aims to collect, from among the combatants, every 15th or 20th WWII-era rifle or handgun. In a potentially white-hot war zone. Just so long as NATO troops get invited in to ameliorate the 'peace-talks'.
It's colonialism all over again. It doesn't matter how many "wogs are caned", or which "dervishes are potted". The 'civilizing' mission must continue.
Humiliated? Certainly not while there, but perhaps once he returned to the US. Just a hunch that Powell was not sent because he cannot be entirely trusted. He seems to forget who his boss is, and sets off on his own --- strays from the reservation and is difficult to muzzle.
In Durban, Powell would have had the spotlight on him as he espoused his own agenda, and may have made all sorts of concessions that the Bush administration has no intention of honoring. Nor could they.
Good.
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.