I had a conversation over Easter weekend with my father about the success or failure of Colin Powell. I can't recall exactly why we were talking about it at that particular moment, however I am sure it had something to do with the recent flurry of criticism directed at the Secretary of State. As my dad could tell you, I've been no big fan of Colin Powell since his military retirement. At best I am a skeptical observer when it comes to his status in public life. But over Easter weekend, my dad brought up a very interesting point about Powell. He said despite all the criticism being leveled at Powell right now by his many detractors (conservative and liberal alike), it is highly likely and entirely plausible, that the Powell's performance over the past year was 100% cooperatively orchestrated with President Bush. The same goes for Secretary Rumsfeld. Initially I didn't think much of this concept given my often knee-jerk reaction to seemingly conspiratorial ideas, but in the week in a half plus, I've mulled it over quite a bit. Once again, I believe my dad is right. Here is why. President Bush's MO plays right into his detractor’s hands. He hails from a blue-blood family with a silver spoon in his mouth. He meandered his way through school lacking real direction, stereotypically as all "frat boys" do. He drank a little too much and perhaps a little too often. And, at least arguably he owes his civilian jobs to his family name and fortune. Finally, he is a born-again Christian, something the Left neither understands less nor loathes more. By the time Bush ran for President, he was ridiculed daily by, among many, academia, the mass media (print and TV), and the political left for the very characteristics that today have made him such a success. That is, his God fearing, compassionate, straight talking, black and white, right and wrong, uncomplicated man – an every man’s man. The key term here is uncomplicated, not to be construed as un-savvy. Since his inauguration, Bush has been repeatedly deadpanned for not understanding how complicated the world (or insert any issue) really is. Yet he continues to win politically, and morally, and at t every critical political juncture, he has used his mischaracterization to soundly defeat his opponents. Consider these examples: · Tax cuts were thought DOA, yet the biggest tax cut in a generation passed with bi-partisan support. · The no child left behind law was determined DOA. So Bush lets the consummate liberal Ted Kennedy write the bill and it passes. Bush gets the credit and the left can’t complain. But the real depth of this strategy has played out most prominently on the international front with the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq, although he does not get near enough positive credit for protecting America from Kyoto or the International Criminal Court. Beginning with the War on Terrorism, Bush allowed and indeed fostered the impression that there was an irreparable rift in his administration between Powell and Rumsfeld (perhaps there was, but it doesn’t matter) – between overwhelming force, and the force of the future. It went so far as to have the Newsweek cover with both Secretaries on the cover, back to back, in an adversarial pose. The implication of the rift was always that Bush had no control of the people that worked for him because he was incapable of understanding the issues. Then came the Iraq debate. Bush’s detractors and their supporters in Congress loudly and consistently declared not enough was known about the pending crisis in Iraq; they claimed, even demanded Bush had to bring his case, his evidence, to the American people. So he called their bluff. The President let the issue occupy the forefront of every congressman’s agenda and mind for several months, ensuring that the issue was being debated loudly and in public – something his detractors hated because it was taking attention away from their issues – and then suddenly he went to the hill and told congress exactly what he intended to do with Iraq. The result was a resolution, passed with solid bi-partisan support by Congress for the President to use any and all means necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein. You could hear the Left gasping for air. Next it was the UN. The Left said America could not go to war in Iraq unless we had UN approval; there had to be another resolution they claimed. So, what happened? Bush this time followed the same strategy, letting the debate rage, while sending his Secretary of State out to show that the US really did want Peace at all costs. He sent Powell to the UN a few times, further allowed the international pressure for a new resolution against Iraq to build, allowed his Secretary speak out about the issue to gather the media’s attention, and then in November of last year, showed up in New York and gave a earth shattering speech. The result? The UN voted 15-0 in favor of a new resolution (1441) that authorized serious consequences for Iraq’s non-compliance. Victory number two – and his detractors hadn’t even caught their breath yet. But the real crux of this theory begins in January of this year, when it had become a silent but foregone conclusion that war was going to happen, once the forces needed were amassed and the battlefield prepared. So Bush allowed the Powell v. Rumsfeld debate to resurface, ensuring that the national debate began anew after it had so quietly disappeared in the waning time between end of Afghanistan and the beginning of the Iraq debate. Next, he sent Powell to the UN on missions that his administration ultimately knew would fail. The purpose however, was not to succeed. The strategic objective rather was to buy time for the military, and provide the necessary diplomatic top cover for his President. This is not to say it was in bad faith – just the contrary. If Colin Powell succeeded in winning more support, then better for the US. If not, it didn’t matter, because the timeline was largely pre-determined. Over the course of the January to March time frame, the world watched Powell go back and forth to the UN to try to assuage the French and Germans into coming along willingly with the US, even though the administration was confident it would never happen. Therefore, the tactical objective was to marginalize increasingly hostile and unfriendly former allies, while setting the stage for the UN’s ultimate test. The proverbial camel breaking straw was Powell’s brief to the UN in February, demonstrating beyond doubt the existence of WMD and terrorist ties. Shortly later, the French made a big stink in the international media by ‘stabbing Powell in the back unexpectedly’ when then summoned him to New York only to deride him for US policies. Incidentally made much ado out of nothing about how Powell and the Bush were completely blindsided. Not likely. It’s a difficult proposition to believe given both the political prowess of both men, coupled with the best intelligence service in the world. Shortly thereafter, the US pulled their final draft resolution from the negotiating table, and again, Powell returned home seemingly empty handed – unable to keep his president from beginning an aggressive pre-emptive war. There are many other cases of “failed diplomacy,” Turkey included, but they can all be summed up like this – all of Powell’s detractors thought that he failed President Bush – or in the Left’s case that he failed to properly guide President Bush. They all got it wrong. If Powell had failed President Bush so dramatically, he simply would not have remained the Secretary of State – especially now given the total victory in Iraq. All this is how the detractors saw Powell’s performance. My dad, and now I, sees it differently. It is actually much more likely Secretary Powell carried out his role in a much greater plan of what was, in effect, psychological operations against the administration’s political opponents. Simply put, everyone – including Bush’s most vocal opponents – loves Powell. Win or lose, he would ultimately come out of the Iraq crisis as a guy who – succeed or not – tried to save the world from war. Yet, while the world was so focused on Powell gaining more time for inspections or securing Franco-German support, or passing another resolution, they totally missed the part where President Bush and his administration (including Powell) had no reason to believe any of it would succeed. It is therefore logical that Powell was employed, in tandem with Rumsfeld, to set the military up for success it achieved in Iraq. Does anyone remember that Colin Powell was a General? Through the lens of Bush’s political successes so far, it is apparent that Powell was doing nothing but a classic feint move. In military terms, he was drawing the opponent’s attention to one direction, while the US shifted the main attack to another. And, in the end, all of Powell’s “non-successes” at the UN were an anticipated, and necessary part of the master plan. Therefore, to judge this Secretary of State’s performance on the basis of previous Secretaries misses the point that the entire evaluation criteria just changed. And so, in the end, it was not Powell that was cajoling a simpleton president into returning to the UN for another round of pointless negotiations; it was not Powell who didn’t secure Franco-German support; it was not Powell who was trying to gain a little more time for inspections. No, it was President Bush who was calling the shots all along, and employing his Generals all great Commanders do. Colin Powell was just one part of a plan that concluded when Baghdad fell nearly three weeks ago. Now when all the detractors begin crawling out of their silence from the collective shell shock at the success and rapidity of Operation Iraqi Freedom, my guess is this: Any of Bush’s political opponents who are not wiser now than they were a year ago and who do not now seriously account for this President’s capabilities and astuteness, will suffer the same fate of another great President’s opponents. Does anyone know what happened to the 1984 Democrats???

posted by Michael Lee on 4/28/2003 05:28:00 PM | link |

---

HOME