As we have discussed before here at CSE, when Papa Bush was handed his hat after only one term as president, there was a struggle to set a defense policy in motion that might be used to beat the incoming Democratic administration over the head with. Then Secretary of Defense Cheney was much concerned that the unravelling of the former Soviet Union would bring about defense cuts that would weaken America's international military prowess. While the policy that resulted, and that we suffer from today, is said to be much more favorable to Wolfowitz's views on deployment and unilateral intervention, Powell was also rather hawkish in his desire to project a military "forward presence" throughout the world.

In an October 2002 article for Harper's Magazine entitled "Dick Cheney's Song of America", David Armstrong writes:

• Powell and his staff believed that a weakened Soviet Union would result in shifting alliances and regional conflict. The United States was the only nation capable of managing the forces at play in the world; it would have to remain the preeminent military power in order to ensure the peace and shape the emerging order in accordance with American interests. U.S. military strategy, therefore, would have to shift from global containment to managing less-well-defined regional struggles and unforeseen contingencies. To do this, the United States would have to project a military "forward presence" around the world; there would be fewer troops but in more places. This plan still would not be cheap, but through careful restructuring and superior technology, the job could be done with 25 percent fewer troops. Powell insisted that maintaining superpower status must be the first priority of the U.S. military. "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do," he said at the time. He also insisted that the troop levels be proposed were the bare minimum necessary to do so. This concept would come to be known as the "Base Force." [2]

This morning, on Meet the Press, Powell is now further stepping away from his old compatriots by stating we should close Guantanamo now, restore Habeus Corpus and stop our short-sighted diplomacy. The interview was impressive, yet, where was Powell before we got into this mess and why did he play along? Any wisdom that might be gleaned from his statements reeks now of hindsight.

While you should certainly follow the link at the end of this article to transcripts of Powell's interview, also consider the example of "all for one and one for all" patriotism that seemingly ignores substantive debate and that played out so poorly and continues to do so in this country. As a "good soldier" Powell played along and showed the utmost loyalty to his overlords whom he must surely have had serious disagreement with, if what he says now can be construed as truthful. It follows with the mentality of not questioning superiors, but following orders. While it is an admirable trait among soldiers, it is deadly in the higher offices of civilian government in a democratic society. It follows with the fortunately decreasing portion of the population that believes supporting American troops means blindly following the civilian leaders who maintain their power by instilling fear and questioning patriotism. Colin Powell fell into this mentality and is guilty of allowing it to fester into the boil we now seek to lance.

NOW, Colin Powell says:

• I think it is short-sighted not to talk to Syria and Iran and everybody else in the region, and not just for the purpose of making a demand on them, and "I'll only talk to you if you meet the demand I want to talk to you about." That's not the way to have a dialogue in my judgment. Powell also apparently described the opposition Cheney and Bush have to dialogue with Syria and Iran as "short-sighted".

• Guantanamo has become a major, a major problem for America's perception ... if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo - not tomorrow, this afternoon. I'd close it. And I'd not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system... Isn't that what our system's all about? ... I would get rid of Guantanamo and I'd get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial. I would do that because it's more equatable and it's more understandable in constitutional terms. But I'd also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. ... We don't need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.

Colin Powell's words are now what a seeming majority have slowly come to believe. But, as a leader, where was Colin Powell with these words in 2003?

Powell: Close Guantanamo Now, Restore Habeus

___________________________________

6.10.2007

coldsteeledge.com