No matter how it was achieved, America has a new group coming into Washington. Kaplan's article in TNR about General Powell is good reading. It might start some discussions here.

http://www.tnr.com/010101/kaplan010101.html

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

Answers

You might be surprised to learn that many conservatives -- especially the hard-righters -- don't really like Powell for many of the reasons stated in that article.

But on the article itself:

First, there is also no doubt that Vietnam had a profound effect of the military. I read a book, On Strategy (modeled after Clausewitz's famous On War) in the eighties that defined that mentality to a T, and to Kaplan's credit, he gets that part right.

I am, however, forced to ignore the INCREDIBLE irony (if not outright disingenuity) of Kaplan acting as though he supported the Gulf War (and particularly "Stormin' Norman's" desire to go on into Baghdad and "get" Sadaam).

On to the argument itself.

Even having had 50 years in which to ponder, no one can conclusively state that Douglas MacArthur was right or wrong in Korea. On the one hand, you can admire his agressiveness and he had an uncanny ability to think "oriental" -- he really believed that he understood the Chinese better than his superiors. He was convinced that, if we had hit the Chinese a few hard licks, they would've backed down. Truman didn't think so and he, too, had reasons to believe as he did. So who can say? I've read compelling arguments on both sides.

I think the same will be true of Powell. 100 years from now, people will still debate whether he was right or not.

The real question, once you cut through the smoke, is: when should our military become involved?

One of the reasons why I voted for Bush is because I don't believe in what are commonly called "police actions." There are several reasons; the biggest is that they generally DON'T WORK. Yes, you can achieve some short-term good, but as soon as your troops leave, unless fundamental changes have occurred in the attitudes of the population in question, things will inevitably go back to the way they were before.

The real reason why we lost in Vietnam is because the people of that country didn't support our efforts. If I could see more genuine interest on the part of the Serbs and Bosnians to sit down and try to genuinely work out their disagreements and find some compromise to live together, that would be a whole different matter. But they haven't. I'm not sure they EVER will.

And you can believe this: as soon as our troops are pulled out of that region, whether by Bush or some successor, within 5 years, they'll be at each other's throats again. Count on it.

So what do we do: leave our military there indefinitely?

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

Poole:

Our troops make up a small part of the force in the region. It is mostly European [as it should be]. It just shows support for the European countries. There are two opposite philosophies which may be summarized by:

1. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

2. Those enslaved by history are doomed to repeat it.

Which one is correct in this case; your guess is as good as mine.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

Z,

The history of the Balkans is one of almost constant conflict, and further, it has historically had a tendency to become a quagmire for any military adventurist.

Ask Churchill about that the next time you see him. :)

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

Z1X4Y7,

Both of your alternatives sound as though we're all doomed.

Haven't we been through this before?

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

The first is usually attributed to Santyanna, although it has a more ancient history. It has a corollary.

"Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it." Corollary: Idiots who come across a possibly pithy saying are doomed to repeat it."

The second comes from a reference to Eire:

In Ireland, there is no present or future--only the past, happening over and over again" Eugene O'Neill--A Moon for the Misbegotten.

Of course, a third possiblility exists; maybe these people are totally clueless.

Stephen:

You mean the mind behind the Dardanelles [may I say touche *<)].

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

I was unaware of the strength of General Powell's perrsonality and his total conviction of being right.

During the Gulf War I was very impressed by Mr. Cheney and to a much lesser extent Gen. Powell. After the Gulf War, I was shocked that any General would defy the President of the United States. No matter what the issue. I was really too young when the McArthur/Truman confrontation happened to understand it. I was very aware of what Colin Powell tried to do to President Clinton, however, and I didn't like it.

This country works because not only do the citizens obey Supreme Court rulings but also because the military obeys civilian leaders.

-- Anonymous, December 29, 2000

Ah Pam, you must remember that old Issac guy…..you know, the ‘up’ and ‘down’ dude. Well, think about it…..Clinton fucks the military… the military fucks Clinton. Works for me.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

How then, Barry, do you think Colin Powell will respond to a President who went AWOL form the Nationl Guard and to a Vice- President who had 4 educational deferrments and one family deferrment during VietNam?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

addendum:

I actually think Colin Powell would make a better President than Secretary of State. If he were still a democrat that might be possible but I don't see the republicans with a black presidential candidate in the near future.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Barry, I too will be very interested to read your response, especially since Colin Powell has made his disdain for rich boys who skate on military commitments widely known. It amazes me that Powell is so power-hungry that he will ignore his own widely published statements to agree to an appointment in the Shrub administration.

Better put away that celebratory drink for awhile, Barry, because the next several months will not be fun for your candidate.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Julie:

Sorry to have to tell you, but the campaign is over. Bush is no longer Barry's candidate, he is now YOUR president. Better wish him well, for all of our sakes.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Flint:

he is now YOUR president.

Let me preface this by saying that I haven't talked to everyone in the country. Many, of the limited number of people that I see on a daily basis, would question your analysis [order?]. I expect to see some interesting times ahead; but probably not what you and Armey envision. I wouldn't be suprised to see an endless list of citizen initiated law suits on all sorts of matters. But I am no prophet; I leave that to the folks on ezboard; i could be wrong and often am.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Well Pam, do you think that maybe Colin Powell thought through all of these pointed questions prior to accepting a Bush cabinet position? Probably so and the answers were positive. Once again, the Bush team were not publicly ‘protesting’ against the war like our weenie wagging out-going President. Also, the Bush family has always been pro-military and unlike Slick Willie has not spent the last 8 years decimating our armed forces. As an American citizen you should be thankful that our military would be restored at this critical junction in history. You do think about these important matters do you not?

And Julie, as Flint has said GWB is soon to be YOUR president. I’m still savoring this victory drink and should this be more than you can stand, why not join your fellow shallow liberals, Alex, Rosie, Cher and Bawah. The weather in Cuba is delightful this time of year, Ms. Comrade.

When my orders sent me to Nam, I had already been in service for almost 4 years. Like many of my fellow mates I considered the whole shebang to be the ultimate cluster-fuck but I still served. Had I been ‘drafted’ my mindset may have been different. Clinton’s activities during his Oxford years were bordering on treason and if ever there was a breeding ground for communism, history will rank that institution very high. I am thankful that the Chinese have been de-railed after all of their efforts over the past eight years.

I could be wrong but that is highly unlikely.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

I was unaware of the strength of General Powell's perrsonality and his total conviction of being right ...

Whoa, Pam! Slow down.

From what I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), you have formed your opinion of Powell from one OPINION column written by a guy whom very few people would call "unbiased."

Powell, like most people, is far more complex than any single article could possible cover. On some issues, he probably is convinced that he's right. On others, he defers to sound judgement.

Sounds about like most of us, when you think about it ...

I used Doug MacArthur as an example for reason: 50 years after his era, people are STILL divided about what motivated him, whether he was right or wrong and so on. We have his entire life's record in front of us; we have testimonies from those who served with him and under him, we have eyewitness accounts, you name it. But opinion is STILL divided.

I've read biographies of Douglas MacArthur that make him an egomaniac. I've read others that call him the greatest commander in US history, who captured more territory with fewer casualties to his troops than any other general in that era. I've read yet still others that focus on the "Dougout Dug" aspect.

The point, of course, is that no single article (or book, or whatever) is going to give you an accurate picture of someone. MacArthur was a very complex man who had a sense of destiny, a tendency to play to a stage and yet, with an uncanny ability to sense his opponents' weaknesses and exploit them to the fullest.

I rather imagine that the same complexity would be found in Powell (whether he's a "MacArthur" or not is also debatable). Simply dismissing him as "hardheaded" (which is really what Kaplan is doing, bottom-line) isn't a very accurate picture.

Desert Storm, in fact, PROVES that, when he is given orders, he may question them, but in the end, he OBEYS them. That's as it should be. No president needs a subordinate who creates his own foreign policy, but by the same token, the country is hardly served by someone who just says "yessir!" without objection to any conceivable order.

The real issue here is the proper use of our military. Like Powell, I don't believe that the military should engage in limited police actions. Either we go full-bore, loaded for bear, with clear (and attainable!) objectives and the tools to achieve them with minimal losses to our troops, or we STAY HOME.

Frankly, I'm GLAD to have a voice of caution at the head of the State Department, which has had more than its share of hawks over the years.

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

I read that article waiting for Kaplan to speculate as to what the world might be like had Powell's recommendations been followed in every case. Would it really be worse? Kaplan just assumed it would be worse and kept going.

So I came away with the sense that Kaplan was following a line of thought that went something like: Bush is bad. Therefore, whoever he names for key cabinet positions must be poor choices. Therefore, Powell is a poor choice. Therefore, I'd better go back, see what Powell has said and done, and put them in the worst light I can. Of course, I *hated* those Republican presidents Powell disagreed with, and attacking Powell makes me look like I'm instead supporting *them*. So I won't mention this. I'll use hindsight, ignore what I wrote at the time, selectively quote Powell's enemies, and make it sound like objective analysis. Maybe someone will be fooled.

And this is a pretty good bet, because there are a lot of Bush haters out there like Pam, who would be perfectly happy to consider Powell a poor choice if he agreed with Bush, and a poor choice if he *disagreed* with Bush, doesn't matter which, because Bush cannot choose good cabinet members by definition. So Powell must be bad *no matter what* he says or does.

Life sure is simple for some people.

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Life sure is simple for some people.

As it appears to be for you, Flint. You seem to automatically label anyone who disagrees with you on this topic as a "Bush-Hater".

How extraordinarily simple.

Happy New Year.

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Stephen--

chuckle. Actually it was Powell's actions AND one article.

It really is a question of ends and means to me. It matters very much to me that the military could successfully challenge any President's policies.

It matters that the votes be counted as accurately as possible no matter the deadline, no matter the outcome, in every election.

The means are important--not just the end. Otherwise what distinguishes America from a 'banana republic' run by the military with arbitrary courts?

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Patricia:

Nice to see your reflexes are still normal. Now, if you'd respond to what I wrote, an intelligent discussion might ensue. Responding purely by reflex without brain engaged illustrates the very simplicity I was talking about.

Or were you providing an illustration just to make my point clearer?

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Pam,

I can understand your point of view, and I don't think you're saying this, but take that to its logical end: the military are thus just servants who are to go where they're told, do what they're told to do, never voicing an objection or complaint. Surely you don't believe that?

The incident at Mai Lai comes to mind.

Our officers are trained to use their initiative *and* to object if a superior gives them an order which they, in good conscience, do not feel is proper. THAT is part of the legacy of WWII, wherein scores of German officers tried to escape punishment for persecuting the Jews by saying, "I was simply following orders." That defense doesn't hold.

That's the extreme case. Knowing where to draw the line is the hard part. Perhaps Powell, at times, has erred on the side of caution. But again, as part of the legacy of Vietnam, the American officer corp has said, "never again!" to the idea that the government will kill thousands of American kids in a can't-win situation using terrible strategy and even worse diplomacy.

That is their RIGHT. And here, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. In the main, I support Powell in his caution. I disagree with him about the Gulf War; that one was vital to our national interest. But in the main, I agree with him in principle.

If you don't, that's fine. Happy New Year anyway. :)

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

And I wish you a Happy New Year full of interesting discussions.

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

Then, to start it off........

What should America's role in the world be?

Pro-active? Moderate? Isolationist?

Will the recent election affect the influence our government has as a world power?

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001