Article

2003-04-30 Europe

Political will to bolster forces is absent, says US

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by George 2003-04-30 04:33 am|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I have a theory: There is not one Colin Powell, but two. His mother really bore siamese twins, and when they got separated, one got the brains and backbone while the other got neither.

This is the one with the backbone and brains speaking.

Posted by Ptah 2003-04-30 06:47:08|| [www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-04-30 06:47:08|| Front Page Top

#2 I can see a basis for that theory, but I'm not convinced: there are also grounds for another theory, that the Powell/Rumsfeld "conflict of views" has been merely a good-cop/bad-cop act.

Powell has been roundly denounced for what is considered by many to have been a pointless, misguided effort to get UN blessing for the removal of Saddam. This effort produced nothing, it is said, and only wasted valuable time.

Consider what it gained us, though. Because of that excruciating six months of diplomatic wrangling, we now have a far clearer and more detailed picture of who are our friends and who are not, and why. That is valuable information, for it allows us to go forward with fewer illusions (like "our allies, the French").

Second, that allegedly wasted six months has allowed us to build a solid case for ignoring an obstructionist, anti-Anglo UN as we proceed further with our struggle against Islamofascist terrorism. Bush (and Powell) gave the UN a clear choice: either lead this struggle, or follow us in it, or we will shove you rudely out of the way. As most expected, the UN proved unable to lead and unwilling to follow; hence the shoving, already underway as we place severe limits on post-war UN involvement in Iraq. And as we turn our attention to Syria, Iran and the other countries that are part of the problem, we now have a firm basis in experience for ignoring the UN entirely.

And I doubt that bothers Powell a whole lot.

Posted by Dave D. 2003-04-30 08:14:46|| 2003-04-30 08:14:46|| Front Page Top

#3 Powell will convince me of his backbone when he cleans the State house of the striped-pants Arabists suffering from Stockholm syndrome. There needs to be a reminder of who they work for and who they represent. A couple forced retirements and cuts in staff are in order

Posted by Frank G 2003-04-30 08:58:03|| 2003-04-30 08:58:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Anyone familiar with the the post WWII history of Europe knows that Powell is absolutely correct. There has been no end of WEUs, Multilateral Forces, Rapid Reaction Corps, Multinational Brigades, etc. Most are French instigated. All have been PR exercises. They have never trained together and certainly have never deployed. It's all empty posturing.

Re Powell. The State Department is supposed to be all the good cops. Their job is to keep lines of communication open until the very advent of war. While not the opposite of the Pentagon, they are its complement. Powell is just doing his job. A State Dept. that is full of warriors is a State Dept. that will fail.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-04-30 10:29:24|| 2003-04-30 10:29:24|| Front Page Top

#5 11A5S

A State Department that is full of warriors is one that will fail may well be true, BUT a state department is not JUST about "keeping the lines of communications open." It's also supposed to "represent the interests" of the country to which it belongs. It is easy for career diplomats to become more concerned about convincing their own country of the "reasonableness" of their contact states interests and lose sight of their charge of representing their parent country's interests. "Good Cops" still make arrests.

Posted by Ralph 2003-04-30 11:12:02|| 2003-04-30 11:12:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Ralph: I work a lot with sales people. They are subject to the same influences as diplomats with the same outcome: they sometimes are more representative of their customer's concerns than their employer's interests. A good organization capitalizes on this, realizing that outside stakeholders need advocates within the company. I agree, that it is much more adversarial in the the world of foreign relations. But the need for advocates of outside points of view is still necessary. That having been said, someone needs to watch to ensure that none of your advocates is crossing the line and becoming a traitor. In most companies, marketing fulfills that function. Every once in a while, marketing has to reach out and squeeze some sales guy in the nuts to make sure that he is working for you and not the customer. For the most part, I believe that the State Department does an adequate job of representing our country's interests. If you have ever played this game, as I have, you would realize that it is borderline disfunctional and fraught with dangers. To put it into engineering parlance, it is not a stable system and needs constant adjustment. But it works better than anything else than I know of and organizations that do it well, know their own and opponents' strengths and weaknesses well and win. There is much empirical evidence that the USA has been winning for the last 50 years. I think that State has been a big contributor to our victories.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-04-30 12:13:25|| 2003-04-30 12:13:25|| Front Page Top

#7 The problem at State is the same today as it was 20 years ago, when I lived and worked in Washington, DC. The middle- and upper-management people were all graduates of Harvard School of International Relations, and about as far left as you could get and still keep a security clearance. They are multinationalists, and have a strong aversion to the policy of diplomacy through strength. They have no love for the US Constitution and its checks and balances, and believe they should have unilateral control of US Foreign Policy, regardless of what the man in the White House says or does. Until they are shaken out of that idiotic attitude, they will continue to make mistake after diplomatic mistake, and continue to provide a serious challenge to this nation's relationships with other nations. Until the link between the "old boy's network" and Harvard are broken, and the old ideas purged with the old men that have them, the United States will be at a disadvantage in diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-30 21:32:02|| 2003-04-30 21:32:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Seems Frank Gaffney sees the same problems I do at State.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-30 23:03:53|| 2003-04-30 23:03:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Powel has done a damn ffine job,and I agree with dave.while dealing with the U.N.was a pain in the ass it has served 2 purposes(1)We now know who are our allies and friends(2)it has shown that the world and more importantly the American street that U.N. is controlled by dictators,terrorist supporters and thier lovers.Also that Kofi is a carrer beurocrat whose primary concern is his delusion of importance,and worried about his job.
OP is correct too.In that State is full of beurocrats and carrer diplomats and needs a through house cleaning,however Powel is not a carrer diplo.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-05-01 08:44:57|| 2003-05-01 08:44:57|| Front Page Top

10:08 Anonymous
08:44 Anonymous
03:24 Tresho
03:06 R. McLeod
02:48 R. McLeod
02:41 R. McLeod
02:15 R. McLeod
01:47 R. McLeod
01:40 R. McLeod
00:21 Mike Kozlowski
00:08 Dishman
23:39 donner
23:38 donner
23:36 Liberalhawk
23:31 Liberalhawk
23:03 Old Patriot
21:58 Frank G
21:45 anon1
21:41 Tokyo Taro
21:36 Frank G
21:32 Old Patriot
20:40 Alaska Paul
20:36 tu3031
20:32 Ptah