Korean Job Discussion Forums

Adventurer · Joined: 28 Jan 2006

I believe Colin Powell has generally had good motives throughout his career, and saying he wants to be in government simply because of what happened in Iraq, so that he can redeem himself is somewhat far-fetched. He has served in several administrations already and helped a Democratic one before as far as I can recall. Of course, on a persona level, he probably feels he was let down by the last administration, and that would be normal for anyone who was in that position, but he believes in service to his country, and that's why he joined the last administration.
It doesn't mean he doesn't enjoy politics, he does. There is more to Colin Powell then some person put in some narrow box.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Somewhere in there lies a question, I am sure. But all I see at the moment is a rant.

The Bobster · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

I think Kuros wants to know why you think he should be back at the State Department. Personally, I always thought it was the wrong place for a retired general.

The Powell Doctrine was repudiated by Rumsfeld and the other neocons, and I think that was ultimately what impelled CP to resign. Events have shown in the interim that the sort of wars he favored (quick, clean, overwhelming military force with no intention of staying on to occupy or exert "influence" - are the best way to use American military might. In short, surge or no surge, America would have been better off without Iraq ever happening.

Shall we ever forgive him for the sad performance with the aluminum tubes at the UN? It was a speech that could have been handed off to an underling in State or the UN Ambassador or someone else ... he was used, his credibility and prestige was employed as a tool by the Bushies, and the case to be made was so lame that no one was convinced anyway. I remember squirming in my seat when I watched the video footage. That all you got? Aluminum freaking tubes? We're gong to war over that?

And it didn't matter, because Bush was bound and determined to invade Baghdad for any reason at all.

Powell was a soldier, and I suspect he carries that with him, and it's the only way I can explain why he stayed in the Bush administration as long as he did when it must have been clear that his former boss's son was intent on rejecting virtually every foreign policy doctrine that had guided the US for the last few decades.

I find his endorsement of Obama credible, and the reasons he gives to be sound. I don't see him as angling for a position in the administration. He is well and truly retired.

Pretty soon, John McCain will be also.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

No, Bobster. And G. Marshall proves your anti-military posture wrong.

"What, exactly, do you think he ought to take State again?" is a question. And "Good God, why?" is the preamble to a rant, and a signal that any answer will be opposed.

I regret that you remain unable to distinguish.

In any case, re: "whether he should": it is not our decision. This is B. Obama and C. Powell's decision, subject, as always, to Senate confirmation, which I imagine would more or less immediately follow with little or no objection.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Very well, Kuros: he had the same background and qualifications in statesmanship as did, for example, G. Washington, A. Jackson, U.S. Grant, G. Marshall, and D. Eisenhower.

So not only do you dismiss mayors and governors, but also national security advisers, chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former secretaries of state? You are off on this one. C. Powell is well-qualified to head State.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

C. Powell to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which approved his nomination unanimously. Does not sound like an incompetent nominee to me.

He had more competency than they, Kuros. He had served three presidents before assuming his post under W. Bush: R. Reagan, H.W. Bush, and B. Clinton: National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. G. Washington went from commanding general to president, and G. Marshall, for example, went from the equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to SecState. D. Eisenhower went from NATO commander to president.

The Bobster · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Yes, with one sweeping gesture, you opined that retired generals do not belong at State.

Also, "Sad performance?" "Falling on his sword?"

He is alive-and-well and still highly-relevant -- and very highly respected -- in American politics, I assure you. Now you may not like that and you may not approve of that. But it is what it is.

I am done arguing this unnecessary point.

We will likely seem him playing one role or another and very near B. Obama's White House. What exactly that role will be, who can say? Why will he play this role? His experience, his wisdom, and his all-around respectability and leadership qualities -- such as knowing how to resign in protest with class.

The Bobster · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

The UN speech killed his cred for a lot of people. It's a fact.

I've always liked the man and I've said nothing ill about him here or anywhere. I have spoken with admiration, on the contrary. I would like the US to return to the Powell Doctrine.

I see a role for him in helping make Obama's pledges about bipartisanship a true thing and not just empty words. I do think Powell's always wanted what was best for America, and I think when he declined to run for office it was with a realization that too much of politics requires self-aggrandizement, and his own strengths have always been about service to the nation rather than making himself a place in history.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

By the way, your interpreting this...