Powell's Stand for Iraq Diplomacy Failed

AP ^ | 3/17/2003 | BARRY SCHWEID

[a_Turk]

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)'s insistence on traditional diplomacy while confronting Iraq (news - web sites) prevailed against hard-liners in the Bush administration, but it failed in the end to win U.N. support for force to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

As a result, the United States stands ready to go to war without the backing of a new resolution, and Powell's commitment to moderation in the administration has sustained a blow.

While Bush administration strategists are convinced the United States will win the war with its "coalition of the willing," the impact of not getting the resolution could force a shift in battle tactics.

Turkey and several other countries had said they were willing to support the United States, but needed the backing of the resolution. Others, like Saudi Arabia, quietly have offered to provide air bases and overflights without it.

Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a private research group, said Monday, "If we had not tried moderation things might have been much worse. There is no way we will ever know."

And, he said, "when the war is over we are still going to need allies."

But Cordesman said in an interview the administration's diplomatic failure had nothing to do with its approach to the United Nations (news - web sites) but with "the fact we wasted nearly a year after the decision to go to war without any clear public diplomacy, without persuading everyone that the threat was real."

"What you had is probably the most dismal exercise of public diplomacy in history," he said.

In Paris, Laurent Cohen-Tangui, a French lawyer who has written extensively about trans-Atlantic relations, credited the French with persuading the administration to go through the United Nations.

"I still think the U.S. can now say they have played the multilateral game and that it didn't work," Cohen-Tangui said in an interview. "At the end of the day the U.S. is better off having done this than if it hadn't."

As for the French, he said they are totally dependent on the U.S. military "so it's a little hypocritical" to oppose the Bush administration in the United Nations.

Powell, at a news conference, said, "You can always look and say you should have done this, you should have done that."

But he said the Bush administration won unanimous approval last November to use force to disarm Iraq and he had no regrets how he went about trying, unsuccessfully, to secure a second resolution.

The failure, in the end, could confirm the view of Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that turning to the United Nations would only produce a stalemate and delay disarming Iraq.

Powell prevailed last fall in his advice to President Bush (news - web sites), although the president questioned U.N. relevance as he kicked off the diplomatic campaign in a speech in September.

Powell then took the ball and ran with it. He made extensive use of telephone diplomacy — on Monday, the final day of diplomacy, he spoke to two-dozen foreign ministers — went to the United Nations four times, provided what he said was exhaustive evidence that Iraq was hiding thousands of weapons of mass destruction and lying about it.

But he could not overcome France's objection to war and the view France shared with several other members of the Security Council that U.N. weapons inspections were working and should be extended.

The decision to withdraw the resolution meant France didn't have to exercise its veto. But Powell said there was another reason for the decision. Mindful of the impending war and then the likely need for post-war reconstruction of Iraq, he said Monday, "This was not the time to have further division within the council by taking this to a vote."

Powell telephoned Lord Robertson, the NATO (news - web sites) secretary-general, late Monday to reaffirm U.S. ties with the allies. And France, Germany and other opponents of the administration's resort to force will be asked to play a role in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq.

[a_Turk]

I kinda like Powell. But I'll post it anyway..

[Coop]

I like Sec Powell as well. He's a valuable asset to the Administration, even if I don't always see eye to eye with him.

[dirtboy]

Powell's Stand for Iraq Diplomacy Failed

It only failed if you wanted the UN to block action against Iraq. Considering how clearly the last few months have defined folks we once thought to be our allies, and raised public ire against the most obstinate of them, I think Powell's gambit worked just fine, thank you.

[Enduring Freedom]

Powell would make an excellent ambassador for America, say, to Spain.

But he is not the right person at the right time at State.

Bush has a higher calling, one that Powell can't fathom.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I disagree with the AP's analysis. Resolution 1441 re-emphasized the previous UN resolutions and provides "serious consequences" language if the Iraqi regime did not fully disarm.

Second, France is now fully exposed as an Iraqi enabler. In the long-term, this exposure will mean their future efforts to obstruct the war on terror will viewed as hollow appeasment.

Third, we now know who we can count on for future military and diplomatic efforts. Like you, I like Colin Powell and believe his efforts will prove beneficial over the long haul. Just my opinion.

[danneskjold]

Agreed. Powell did his part, the UN (unwittingly) did theirs, now it's time for the US Armed Forces to finish up...

[haywoodwebb]

This is a BS article.

They were playing "good cop, bad cop" all along.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Fourth, Powell prove the UN is irrelevant.

[danneskjold]

a good house cleaning is in order; UN, State Department, etc...

It's coming...

[EternalVigilance]

I'll never like Powell, barring some huge philosopical transformation.

His politics and policy positions are indistinguishable from Clinton's, point by point.

He's a smart guy with a whacked out moral compass, IMO.

[Solson]

Anyone who was read David Frum's book, "The Right Man" has a MUCH better picture of what was played out.

Powell and Rumsfeld took opposite sides of the argument. No side "won" the argument but Bush decided to go the diplomatic route first. Having made that decision, Powell was given a timeline to get it done or it becomes a Rumsfeld issue. Bush never wavered once he made that decision and has seen that decision through to the end.

Having not succeeded on those terms, Rumsfeld now gets to deal with the situation.

In the end, it is a GREAT tribute to a GREAT President that he has established his administration to get ALL sides of an argument. Anyone who thinks Bush is stupid really needs to take heed. Bush has been an outstanding leader, delegating information gathering and presentation of options to his cabinet, gaining all sides of input and then making a decision...DECISIVELY.

Once Bush gives the go ahead to Rumsfeld, there will be no turning back. They will go and go until we win completely.

I highly recommend Frum's book because it's a quick read and because it gives great insight into the decision making process of the President.

[ambrose]

It only failed if you wanted the UN to block action against Iraq. Considering how clearly the last few months have defined folks we once thought to be our allies, and raised public ire against the most obstinate of them, I think Powell's gambit worked just fine, thank you.

I'll bump to that... The U.N., and many of our "allies" have been exposed for what they really are... And we have also learned who our true friends in the world are...

[Paleo Conservative]

But Powell has been a useful idiot (to use Stalin's term). The UN has finally been expose for what it is, an apologist for dictatorships. In the future we won't feel it necessary to bring issues to the Security Council. Instead the US will get its own coalitions to deal with rogue regimes.

[xzins]

As a result, the United States stands ready to go to war without the backing of a new resolution, and Powell's commitment to moderation in the administration has sustained a blow

I doubt it. Bush runs a CEO style. He wants his junior officers to fight it out. In that instance he liked Powell's presentation and reasoning.

If he likes it on a different subject in the future, he'll choose Powell again.

This administration has some excellent communicators. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell are the best. They'll square off again.....over Iran is my guess.

Rid the world of N. Korea's customers, and N. Korea must strangle.

[HairOfTheDog]

I kinda like Powell. But I'll post it anyway..

No kidding! - I liked Powell before it was fashionable to like Powell.

Is he saying diplomacy should not have been tried? - Bomb first and talk later? Yeah, that would have been more popular. - Give me a break. The job of Secretary of State is to hold diplomatic doors open until there is no chance. Powell's job is diplomacy, not war planning. That is what Rummy is for.

[Ancesthntr]

I have to go along with those who said that the series of events we have witnessed were part of a design by Bush & Co. I won't go so far as to say that anyone knew what the results would be, but I'm sure that GWB wanted to find out where various countries stand, and to get all of them on the record. He is doing the same with the Estrada nomination. After these 2 incidents are finished, GWB will be in a good position to put the screws to all of those that were on the wrong side.

[alloysteel]

Diplomacy did not fail. The belief that diplomacy is an effective tool to be used on a rabid dog has been thoroughly discredited. It is time to go to a more formidable option in our arsenal.

The next one makes noise, breaks things, and generally causes people in close vicinity to die. This is our military forces, not used except with grave provocation, and always after giving ample warning.

If you don't want to become sausage, don't jump into a meat grinder. The wurst is yet to come.