| Submit your comments on this article |
| Rumsfeld v Powell: beyond good and evil |
| 2004-02-28 |
| A good read and plenty of links. Donald Rumsfeld is the neo-conservative architect of war, Colin Powell the cuddly multilateralist. Right? Wrong. Behind the caricature is a titanic Washington struggle far more complicated and interesting. .................. During my many travels to Europe over the past year, a familiar motif has played itself out. No sooner do I hit the tarmac than my hostsâ cheerful welcoming banter is followed by the first serious question: âwhoâs up and whoâs down?â in the putative fight to the death being waged between the United Statesâs secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and its secretary of state, Colin Powell. The question is not posed with equanimity. For all that Americans are charged with too often viewing the world as a simple clash between good and evil, this European concern has its own distinct moral subtext. In a cartoonish way, foreign observers often contrast the decent, honourable, mild-mannered, multilateralist Powell with an overbearing, rude, blunt, abrasive, arrogant, unilateralist Rumsfeld. This simplicism is a metaphor for how little the rest of the world really knows about the sole remaining superpower. It is also a fine place to start explaining the realities of post-9/11 America to the rest of the world. Itâs the ideas, stupid The truth of the competition for the foreign policy soul of the Bush administration lies not in cliché but in history. Colin Powell is the champion of the realist school of thought, which has been prevalent in America since Alexander Hamilton convinced Congress to support the Jay Treaty with England in 1794. Realism, an ideology based above all else on furthering American national interests (it must be said by either unilateral or multilateral means), is as far from the cuddly Wilsonian idealism that many Europeans ascribe to Powell as it is possible to be. Realists, moreover, do not share the fantasy (propagated by followers of the French president, Jacques Chirac) that we live in a âmultipolarâ world of three-to-five relatively equal powers. Realists currently see the power structure of the world as one where the United States is the chairman of the board, the first among equals. But if global problems are to be successfully addressed, other board members need to be engaged on an issue-by-issue, case-by-case basis. This hard-headed pragmatism â aeons away from foreign perceptions of Colin Powell as a closet European who somehow took a wrong turn and ended up in the Bush administration â is the true reason for Powellâs concern to carry allies along. Europeâs judgment of Donald Rumsfeld as the repository of all that the rest of the world despises about America is equally flawed. A former ambassador to Nato, a Congressman, chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, and now both the youngest and the oldest man ever to hold the position of defence secretary, Rumsfeld has been grappling with foreign relations issues for thirty years. Indeed, as a staunch believer in the transatlantic alliance, Rumsfeld is far more a Washington operator than he is an ideologue, unlike neo-conservatives such as his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the thrusting hawks clustered around vice-president Dick Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis âScooterâ Libby. In fact, although âneo-conservativeâ is the current watchword for all that is malign in European eyes about the Bush administrationâs foreign policy, it is an open question as to whether Rumsfeld is one at all. Strict neo-conservatives see America as the new Rome, the only global power of significance in an otherwise dangerous and chaotic world. Donald Rumsfeldâs famous dictum, âthe mission determines the coalition â the coalition does not determine the missionâ, may not be music to the ears of European believers in the multipolar ideal; but it is far from the neo-conservative belief that pursuing coalitions is pointless. Real drama, not soap opera However, if foreign views of differences between Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are exaggerated, they are correct about one fundamental truth: the Bush administrationâs foreign policy is not monolithic. In fact, a titanic struggle between realists and neo-conservatives for control of the Bush administration and the Republican party is underway; and it is mirrored by the ideological battle within the Democratic party between traditionalist and harder-edged Wilsonians. America has not been in this much ideological ferment regarding foreign affairs since the Truman era after the second world war. As was the case in 1945 with the doctrine of âcontainmentâ elaborated during the cold war to meet the challenge of the Soviet Union, it is likely that the emerging, dominant paradigm of American foreign policy will be a hybrid that fuses elements of all three schools of thought: realism, Wilsonianism, and neo-conservatism. America is a nation in flux. The neocon ascendancy that sent United States troops into Iraq is less secure than it seemed a year ago. A historic clash between different foreign policy doctrines is taking place; âwhoâs up and whoâs down?â is mere European soap opera in comparison. As Valentine, the lead character in Tom Stoppardâs wonderful play, Arcadia, says: âItâs the best possible time to be alive, when everything you thought you knew is wrong.â |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Strict neo-conservatives see America as the new Rome, the only global power of significance in an otherwise dangerous and chaotic world. says who? Hey author ...I've rewritten your piece above: We hailed Colin Powell's multinational arguments as cool and hip and correct. But now that the war is over and we see that Chirac and Schroeder and the UN were just scamming the Iraqi people, stuffing money in their off-shore oil accounts and, unless we wish to justify the horrors of Sadaam's reign, we are forced to admit that Rumsfeld wasn't such an idiot afterall. However, because we just CAN'T bring ourselves to admit that outright, we will admit we were wrong but blather on endlessly how we weren't completely wrong because Cheney is bad and Bush is stupid and the neocons are still out to get you. We believe that if we blather on long enough and throw out enough red herrings and bogus proclamations, like the one above, that we will bore our readers into believing that we are saying something other than, "we were wrong". |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-28 6:06:51 PM |
| #3 Wow. I can't actually see the neo-conservatives in the Republican party trying to take control, because I don't believe there are any. It's a term made by opposition to make the people who are right-of-center look like fanatics. Other than that, I agree with what he says. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-2-28 1:04:21 PM |
| #2 An interesting analysis and one that has an even more interesting subtext which is that Europe and the other second tier powers are second tier in terms of their contribution of ideas to the debate on the future of the world. The future of the world is being made in the USA not only because of its miltary prowess but becuase of its capacity to formulate and execute (achievable) ideas. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-2-28 11:16:49 AM |
| #1 Donald Rumsfeldâs famous dictum, âthe mission determines the coalition â the coalition does not determine the missionâ, may not be music to the ears of European believers in the multipolar ideal; but it is far from the neo-conservative belief that pursuing coalitions is pointless. This is kind of simplistic - do neo-conservatives really believe that coalitions are pointless? I can't believe they think that. Rather, they believe, as Rumsfeld does, that the only practical coalitions are the ones that come together out of a sense that they are pursuing common ends. What is pointless is to pursue coalition allies that are firmly set against a particular approach to achieving policy ends - of deterring countries that provide assistance to countries by threatening to topple them. The simplistic approach, in an age of terrorist mass-murder by proxy, is an approach that merely criticizes those regimes that give aid (money and recruits) and comfort (transit rights and shelter) to the terrorists. A new deterrence is needed - a deterrence that is grounded in acts, not words. Afghanistan and Iraq were the proving grounds for these actions. Various countries that previously provided lip-service to cooperating with US intelligence services in cracking down on terrorists are now attacking and killing them on their home ground. And much of this is attributable to Afghanistan and Iraq - Muslim regimes are frightened - they understand that regime change could happen to them. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-28 9:55:28 AM |