Powell as Foil

I just finished reading Reputation, the next posthumous book by Marjorie Williams. This book is just a collection of her political profiles. Her ability to analyze a person and really get to their flaws and strengths - to really see the entire person - was amazing. It is one of the many qualities she had that the world is now deprived of. Unfortunately, only some of the people were really interesting, which made the book good, but not great. By far the best profile was the last one - Colin Powell. Her profile of him, before he had decided not to run for President in 1996, is probably the best analysis of him I have ever seen.

In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.

The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.

The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.

This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.

Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.

So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.