February 19, 2004
Topping Metternich...
This has got to be the stupidest article of the week, by Fred Kaplan, in Slate. The author thinks Colin Powell is falling apart because he has failed as Secretary of State.
Is Colin Powell melting down?First of all, what Powell was doing was acting like a grownup. The staffer was performing with childish discourtesy and deserved a much worse spanking than he got.It's hard to come up with another explanation for his jaw-dropping behavior ...last week before the House International Relations Committee. There he sat, recounting for the umpety-umpth time why, back in February 2003, he believed the pessimistic estimates about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I went and lived at the CIA for about four days," he began, "to make sure that nothing was—" Suddenly, he stopped and glared at a Democratic committee staffer who was smirking and shaking his head. "Are you shaking your head for something, young man back there?" Powell grumbled. "Are you part of the proceedings?"...
When I was growing up, if I or any other child were to mouth-off in public, any nearby grown-up would have squelched us immediately. And gone to our parents if it seemed necessary. Nowadays they probably wouldn't dare, for fear of a rebuff or a lawsuit. When your lefty pals talk about the "conformist 1950's," and how pleased they were to trash them, this community support for good manners and behavior is a lot of what they were jettisoning. If bad manners and a general coarseness are the norm today, you can, as they say, thank a Liberal.
Anyway, back to Powell.
...As George Bush's first term nears its end, Powell's tenure as top diplomat is approaching its nadir. On the high-profile issues of the day, he seems to have almost no influence within the administration. And his fateful briefing one year ago before the U.N. Security Council—where he attached his personal credibility to claims of Iraqi WMD—has destroyed his once-considerable standing with the Democrats, not to mention our European allies, most of the United Nations, and the media...You've noticed, I'm sure, that we haven't invaded anyone for almost a year now. Pretty much everything that the Administration is doing out in the world is diplomacy. And our diplomacy has been very successful so far, and looks to be in good shape for bigger triumphs in the future. Colin Powell may end up in the history books looking like the greatest foreign minister since Metternich. This is failure?
To a lefty-pundit, of course, it is. To him, Powell is the only hope within the Administration of blocking the bloody march to "war-after-war" planned, supposedly, by the Neocons. His job is to thwart the President's policy, to sabotage it, to force it to be more Clintonian. The thing is never expressed so baldly of course—the conflict is always described as being with Rumsfeld or Cheney. But people in the know always report that GWB is the one who makes the decisions, and he's really the one who people like Kaplan want to stymie.
It probably never even occurs to Mr Kaplan that success for a Secretary of State should lie in loyally implementing the President's policies. Not when the President is a Republican and a Texan. "Success" is being popular with pundits and Europeans and those who cherish the UN. Just as it probably never occurs to him that Congressional staffers should not be making mock of the President of the United States, even if they disagree with him. (And, I'd guess, it doesn't occur to him that children who are impolite should be reprimanded. Pope's line pops into my head: " This painted Child of Dirt that stinks and stings...")
The whole point of the so-called Neocon plan was diplomacy. The whole point was avoiding wars. And now that we've cleaned Saddam's clock, diplomacy is working like it hasn't done in decades. Every week seems to bring some new tale of a tyrant suddenly grown more reasonable, or some regional conflict newly amenable to negotiation. Colin Powell is an important member of an extremely successful team. Therefore he is a success. I don't know what he would personally like to see happen; I find him very opaque. But it doesn't matter! His duty is to give the best advice he can, and then support whatever decision is made.
Posted by John Weidner at February 19, 2004 05:09 PM | TrackBackNot only is Powell acting like a grownup, he is acting like a General. You don't get where he is without plenty of force of character.
Posted by: Gary Utter at February 19, 2004 06:49 PMAh, John, you always look on the bright side. I like that. I've been very critical of Powell because I thought he was giving Bush bad advice, but I sympathize with the fix he's in now. He bit back his misgivings and made a strong speech at the U.N., as ordered. The French blew him off anyway, and he failed to deliver the endorsement he probably promised his boss. Later the CIA's intelligence proved faulty. No wonder the guy's a bit prickly these days.
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at February 20, 2004 04:43 AMWell, if Bush is the sort of leader I think he is, he WANTS someone who can make the strongest possible arguments against his "hawks." And then loyally support whatever policy is decided upon.
There probably isn't anyone else who could do that; who has the weight to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice in bureaucratic knife-fights, and still be a loyal soldier.
My prediction: When, years from now, the facts come out, we will find that Bush VALUED Powell for just these reasons. And I predict that Powell is NOT about to leave the Administration any time soon...
Your prediction is probably a sound one, but I can't say that I'm pleased to contemplate the consequences. The American public is not yet ready to give up its illusions about the U.N., and it wouldn't be good politics for Bush to appoint a Secretary of State who opposed the bogus practice of "multilateralism" on principle.
But I have the impression that Powell has done little or nothing to reform the State Department, which evidently regards itself as a client of foreign governments rather than an agency to secure and explain U.S. interests abroad. For this reason, I believe that Powell's tenure will prove more harmful than helpful, in the long run.
I couldn't agree more. (But bringing democracy to Iraq is probabably an easier task then bringing democracy to the State Department.)
Posted by: John Weidner at February 21, 2004 08:33 AMYour prediction is probably a sound one, but I can't say that I'm pleased to contemplate the consequences. The American public is not yet ready to give up its illusions about the U.N., and it wouldn't be good politics for Bush to appoint a Secretary of State who opposed the bogus practice of "multilateralism" on principle.
it'd be bad politics, but it'd be sound policy.
i've absolutely no qualms w/ the u.n. as a humanitarian instutitution--they've done their best in numberous "hot spots" around the globe, & ought to be rightfully commended for that--but the notion of treating the security council as the supreme body inasfar as foreign policy considerations go, all in the name of some vacuous ideal of "multilateralism," is the second biggest threat to the states right now.
Posted by: harm d. at February 21, 2004 04:25 PM
