Using your 20/20 hindsight, speculate on whether Colin Powell, if he had come to his senses/grown some balls/been a diffferent person, etc., might have realized “Holy shit! Everything the adminsitration is claiming is weak bs, and the things they’re making me defend in public are mostly lies supported only by sophistry, and I gotta DO something here,” could have stopped the Iraq War from happening, or at least caused it to end MUCH sooner than it did.
What point do you think his opposition to the war would have been most effective? I’m presuming he would have had to resign as SoS at some early point, but it would have IMO been helpful for him to start voicing public opposition to Bush policies while still serving as SoS.
What do you think would have been his most effective strategy opposing the war?
I think this would have been most damaging to the war effort if it created a schism within the GOP, but it may have worked to create a stronger GOP in this decade–IOW, Powell’s wing of the party might have emerged victorious, and Powell might be sitting in the White House today–or possibly he would have completed two four-year terms (2005-2013) if he had begun his vocal opposition to the war early enough.
Was he ever in a position to do real damage to the war in Iraq?
That moment would have been during the show in front of the UN.
Before that, just resigning would not have helped. People did resign and were promptly forgotten. Resigning is not an effective strategy, you only remove yourelf from the game.
No, he should have stopped mid-presentation and told the UN that it was all lies.
But then, who knows how the administration held over him to make that presentation in the first place. Remeber these were ruthless, cold-hearted murederers that led your country.
Yeah, I think he could have. He would have had military credibility, credibility as someone who did have access to the intelligence, and as someone who knew a thing or two specifically about fighting a war in Iraq. He would also have instantly become the most hated man in America for 30-40% of the population and would have been attacked bitterly by the right wing, but I think he would have flipped the Thomas Friedman wing of the press by himself if he had resigned in oh, say, late 2002 or even early 2003 and said basically that the case for the war was a bunch of bullshit. I guess the Bush admin could have said, “fuck it, we’re going to war anyway” and there wouldn’t be any practical way that they could have been stopped, but it would have been a lot less politically tenable.
(Stopping mid-presentation would have been dumb; better to look like a statesman by resigning before that than look like a showman by going off script in the middle of the presentation. It’s not like he would have had trouble getting the word out.)
No. At the first sign of public criticism, if it was very mild the white house would have given him a stern warning, and fired him if it happened again. If it was explicit, he would have been fired immediately. The administration was determined to go to war over almost universal disapproval, and just one guy wouldn’t have stopped them.
Yes. He could have made a public statement that we didn’t have evidence of WMD and hadn’t planned properly for the war, and possibly induced the public to participate in the decision instead of sitting on their hands letting politicians make the choice based on their own personal interests.
It may not have stopped the war, but it would have been worth it for him to try. He would not have stained his own legacy, though that was largely fabricated in the first place.
The pro-war crowd was determined to invade Iraq. They weren’t going to be dissuaded by gestures. The only way Powell might have stopped the war was by actively opposing the war and trying to persuade Congress to deny Bush the authorization he needed.
And I don’t see that happening. Powell was a soldier. He might have resigned over disagreement with orders but he wouldn’t lead open opposition to a President.
Had Powell done the right thing and refused to be part of the misinformation campaign, he would have given people like Hilary Clinton the cover they needed to also do the right thing and vote against giving the authorization for the war. Public opinion would have collapsed. Unfotunately, decent and courageous people were in short supply in the Bush administration and in the US senate.
The Bush administration were determined to go to war from the moment they got into the White House. There were many who pushed for war since the mid-90s. So no, Powell couldn’t have stopped it.
Powell supported the war. If he had come out, as Latro says, in the middle of his brilliant speech to the UN as against it as a pack of lies, it is possible that it could have been stopped in my opinion. Powell’s speech was, while I disagreed with it at the time on fact and interpretation, absolutely masterful in marshaling the bullshit arguments.
I agree with this. I think that if, at that UN presentation, he had come in, sat down, and from the beginning laid out the argument that there was scant justification for fears of Iraq’s unconventional weapons capacity, he would have dealt a severe blow to the propaganda campaign that the Bush administration obviously thought was necessary.
World allies, especially Poland, would have been very dubious following that presentation. In January, 2003, only one-third of the American public supported military action against Iraq. A public condemnation by Powell would have fatally crippled popular support for the war.
Instead, what happened in reality is that Powell’s presentation boosted popular support for the war.
In this interview he says he tried to avoid the war by laying out the potential obstacles, costs and other problems to Bush. But he doesn’t say that he gives his opinion, nothing like, “this is a terrible idea, Mr. President.” And near the end he tells Bush that if he decides to go ahead, “I’m with you.”
The WMD evidence was falling apart before the war started. Stories like the “Nigerian uranium” and “aluminum tubes” claims had been proven to be falsehoods. Those facts were, for the most part, ignored; the Bush administration had the run of the media. They were right in front of people and yet the stampede to war continued unabated.
Had Powell turned against the Bush administration - which would be so out of character that it’s pure fantasy, but anyway - he’d have been branded a traitor to the cause and shunted aside. People would have accepted that, just as they accepted key parts of the WMD story being lies, and yet went on braying for war.
Well, the Bushies would have tried to ruin his reputation, but it was a pretty strong reputation. They were more powerful, certainly more numerous, but Colin Powell coming out and saying “This war is pure BS,” resigning under pressure, going on a no-holds-barred, 24/7 campaign to stop the war, finding allies to his cause? …I don’t think it’s a given that he would have been rolled over.
You folks who are saying otherwise are really saying awful things about Powell’s character. Seems to me like you’re saying that they could have been chortling openly about pulling offf this scam on the public to Powell, and he would have been their loyal lapdog no matter what. That’s pretty sad.
I disagree. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld certainly wanted the war, but they weren’t going to go against public opinion or Congress to get it. Hence all the questionable WMD intelligence, trying to link Saddam and Osama, etc. Even after 9/11, getting the support they needed was a bit of a lift, hence the need for so many sketchy goings-on to sell it to the public.
And Powell was probably the most respected figure in the Administration, was specifically well known for having previously fought a successful war in Iraq and was one of Bush’s front guys on selling the war. I think Powell resigning and going all-out to question the case for war would’ve, at the least, delayed it for several years.
Course, who knows. Paul O’Neil’s resignation/firing didn’t exactly prevent the Bush tax-cuts.
But here is my problem with this. At the time, didn’t everyone, and I mean everyone: Dems, Republicans, the UN, the French, etc. believe that Saddam absolutely and without question had these WMDs? The only debate was with the necessity to use force to disarm him versus letting sanctions do the trick.
Unless my memory fails me, everyone believed that Iraq possessed these weapons. So Powell would have needed a crystal ball to say that they didn’t have them.
Powell certainly had the intelligence (in both senses) early on, enough to have his suspicions and enough clout to have explored the data more aggressively, if he’d had a whole 'nother character to do so. If he’d suspected (correctly) that this whole thing was a gigantic snowjob in order to gin up the war machine, and done all he could have to make absolutely sure that the parts he was taking as true on trust were checked out by his own people, he could have nailed down those (large) that were built on wishes and sand. No one was in a better position to verify the things we mere mortals (including Senators) were assured of.
He could have been the biggest hero of the century, so far at least for sure. He isn’t.
Did you watch him answer the question in the Youtube link? Either he believed in the WMDs too, or he was a loyal lapdog no matter what. And in fact, that’s pretty much what soldiers are supposed to be, very obedient lapdogs with razor sharp teeth who will do what they’re told including rip people apart on master’s order.
I find it disturbing that by his own account he “opposed” the war by merely emphasizing the difficulties and costs, and apparently never expressed an actual opinion by telling the president he thought it was a bad idea. Also, if he expected GW to be swayed by facts, he was a terrible judge of character.