The Two Faces of Colin

by Dan Jacoby

Guess who wrote this, and when:
"Even if Hussein had waited for us to enter Baghdad, and even if we had been able to capture him, what purpose would it have served? And would serving that purpose have been worth the many more casualties that would have occurred? Would it have been worth the inevitable follow-up: major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad?"

Give up? It was then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Colin Powell, in 1992. He felt that it was not in our best interests to effect "regime change" in Iraq. As a result, he was hailed by Democrats and Republicans alike as the master of the intelligent military strategy, known as the "Powell Doctrine."

At that time, part of his job involved defending publicly the policies of his Commander in Chief, President George H. W. Bush. Now, his job involves defending publicly the policies of his boss, President George (no "H" -- or possibly "H. no") W. Bush. So what happened to the Powell Doctrine?

Apparently, it got shown the door.

The Powell Doctrine says that when force must be used it should be overwhelming force. The use of overwhelming force limits friendly casualties. But we sent more troops just to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait in 1991 than we sent to conquer and occupy Iraq in 2003. The result is that our troops are stretched frustratingly thin, tours of duty are being extended without warning, and Americans are dying. Yet Secretary Powell, in defending this policy, ignores General Powell's doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine calls for a clear exit strategy. But over a year after we began bombing Baghdad the Bush administration has no idea how to finish the job. Now, there's even more confusion over how to hand over the keys, whom to hand them to, and what to do afterward. George W. Bush and his advisors have no idea how to proceed. They have no idea what our objectives are, let alone how to achieve them. There is no exit strategy. Yet Secretary Powell doesn't seem bothered by this violation of General Powell's doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine calls for analyzing what might happen once force is used. All the evidence indicates that George W. Bush merely assumed that the Iraqis would greet us with cheers and flowers. He never considered that most Iraqis would be upset at our long occupation of their country. He never thought about how to deal with the inevitable problems that any occupying force would encounter, going so far as to deny that these problems would even arise. And where is Secretary Powell? He's busy avoiding General Powell's doctrine.

Bob Woodward's recent book claims that Secretary Powell was kept out of the loop during the planning of this invasion, a claim Mr. Powell is vigorously denying. In fact, Mr. Powell is claiming that he was in favor of the invasion. He doesn't have to say that, of course. His job as an advisor to the President may require him to defend the President's policies, but he can do that after the fact. He doesn't need to say that he was in favor of those policies before they were fully formed.

So what do we make from Secretary Powell's statements? If we take him at his word, it means he has dumped his own doctrine in favor of -- well, we can't be certain what he is in favor of.

All we can be certain of is that he is facing the other direction.

 

Copyright 2004, Dan Jacoby

For a PDF version of this document, click here.

To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.

Return to the Main Menu