>I think it’s worthwhile to point out that the U.S.
>also won the Gulf War.
Really? We declared victory, but we didn’t defeat Sadam. Seems to be a Bush family habit. Sadam is still in power, and he achieved his objective of fragmenting the coalition. He got everything he wanted, we got nothing except Kuwait. Looks like we lost the war.
>No, she was not ambassador to the UN then; she didn’t become
>UN ambassador until two years after the Gulf War ended.
>It’s doubtful Colin Powell said one single word to Madeleine
>Albright during the Gulf War, seeing as how Albright was not
>even working for the government then, so I doubt your claim
>that they were involved in “infighting.”
I’m checking dates, maybe I have Baker and Iraq vs. Albright and Bosnia mixed up, but others have posted clear evidence that Albright fought with Powell over Bosnia, and there is clear information on Powell arguing to end the Gulf War prematurely, without defeating the enemy. Powell is a loser. He has no qualifications to be Secretary of State.
About Powell running for President–I tend to suspect that he’s always demurred up to now because there would be people like Jackson and Sharpton out there who would absolutely vilify the man as a defense against the threat he poses to their power base. I think his decision not to run for political office was largely informed by the experience of Clarence Thomas, and the irreversable character assassination he suffered on (in retrospect, what I should hope is now clear to be)completely ridiculous grounds. At the time, Thomas said he would have preferred “an assassin’s bullet” to what he had to go through, and I suspect that Thomas’s figurative preference would be a clear and present threat in actual terms for any conservative black who had the temerity to run for president.
I think people like him because they can see he’s just a nice guy. Not a Patton with a massive ego, not a MacArthur with a political agenda, but more of an Eisenhower with a lot of plain willingness to look at all options.
ha… remimds me of Jay Leno’s joke about how Bush declared he would draw from his military experience in the National Guard when he becomes president. That means he’ll spend 2 weeks a year on the job.
Objectives of the coalition:
Removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and forward positions threatening Saudi oil fields. Destruction of Iraq’s ability to project force in the region, secondary goal.
Goals Achieved.
Removal of Saddam, regardless of some people’s fond hopes, etc. was not an agreed on aim.
Saddam’s objective was to seize Kuwaiti oil fields and probably become a player in Gulf politics.
Presently his army remains a shadow of what it once was, he has little to no ability to project power even within his own country and he remains marginalized by the other Arab and Islamic states, at least at an official level.
Failure, complete and utter.
Fragementing the coalition? Well insofar as the US wishes to push a policy which no one agreed on to begin with…
Removing Saddam is a simplistic solution. The question really is what replaces him? Anything better? Very unclear. Full scale invasion would not have been supported by any Arab allies at the time, and not likely by other allies. Given we need Saudi and other Gulf state permission for use of bases, it would have been senseless to push the issue.
Saddam, being an idiot and a simple thug, is actually not a bad option in terms of realpolitik. Someone more clever might have long ago succeeded
The enemy was defeated to the extent to which the agreed goals of the coalition were achieved. Unlike you and some critics, Powell clearly understood the power dynamics in the region. Overreaching does not get you more, it gets you less.
Insofar as he shows an understanding of the niceties and requirements of international politics, that clearly shows he has some talent or at least understanding of the role of SecState.
Goal NOT achieved. We could have achieved this goal by continuing the fight and completely destroying Sadam’s remaining military forces. But we didn’t, all because of Powell. Sadam was left with the ability to project significant military power even after his alleged “defeat.” Try your argument on the Kurds that died while coalition forces stood by and watched, under Powell’s orders. They won’t buy it any more than I do.
(1) Coalition was not put together with the goal of destroying Saddam. (fact like it or not)
(2) Coalition members other than US and GB did not support invasion of Iraq. Notably Arab states, whose bases were required for future US projection capacity.
(3) Kurds are internal to Iraq. That’s not power projection, that’s ruling your own country. Ergo irrelevant to the question.
Iraq is not presently capable of threatening, in conventional terms, its neighbors. Saddam is barely able to control his own territory. End of story.
Removing Saddam from power would have required the rennegotiation of the coalition, with a low liklihood of Arab approval. No Arab government would want to open itself up to criticisms of allowing the US to impose a neocolonial rule over Iraq --as an invasion of Iraq would have surely required.
As such, the short term goal of removing Saddam did not stand up to the long term cost benefit analysis.
Again, original goals achieved. Long term strategic goals achieved. Success.
American news? Nope, don’t live in the USA anymore, I live and work right next door to dear old Saddam, relatively speaking. Do I watch and read the news? Yup, all the time, BBC, RFI, al-hyaat, al-jeziira etc. Part of my job, not a big part but part. Along with keeping up with the various risk analyse services my corp subscribes to.
But let me restate a somewhat sloppy expression: Is Saddam capable of threatening his neighbors as he was when Iraq had one of the largest armies in the Middle East? No, the Iraqi army remains a shadow of its former self. I reiterate, Saddam’s regime does not even have full control of Iraqi territory, let alone the capacity to threaten a massive conventional invasion as it once could – and did. Of course, Saddam can still in some respects threaten his neighbors, but in trivial ways as compared to pre-1990.
So, for those positing the destruction of Saddam’s regime:
(1) You have to explain what is going to hold the coalition together
(2) How one deals with the inevitable Arab backlash
(3) What you replace Saddam with and how you avoid a medium term occuption of Iraq, with all the fallout that entails.
An adolescent joy in kicking butt does not replace a careful cost-benefit analysis.
It amazes me that people forget things that happened only nine years ago, but the one and only point to the Gulf War was to drive the Iraqis from Kuwait. That was the stated and clear objective from day one to the last bullet, and it was accomplished in spades. Therefore, the war was won.
Invading central Iraq and kicking Hussein out of office was NEVER an option. If you’ll actually hearken back to those days, Bush and the U.S. expended a huge amount of time end energy and played more or less every political card they had to get the Arab nations onside with the “Coalition.” It was the most fragile of alliances and was based solely on the understanding that the U.S. was there just to liberate Kuwait.
To suddenly up and change the entire plan in mid-stream and go for Baghdad would have been a horrifying stab in back to the Arab countries and would have offended every other nation in the Coalition, most of whom would have immediately abandoned the U.S. Relations with the Arab countries would have instantly been ruined for generations, ambassadors expelled, the Israeli situation worsened immeasurably. Arab leaders who had warned against cooperation with the U.S. like Quaddafi would have suddenly looked like geniuses and would have extended their influence. God only knows what might have happened. If you think Iraq is a problem now, imagine the U.S’s relations with EVERY Arab country being about that bad.
That’s without even getting into the issue of Coalition forces trying to take a city of three million people against what would have certainly been very determined opposition. The half-starved troops who were surrendering to journalists in south Iraq were not the same troops that would have been defending Baghdad - a city, the very place armored forces and close air support are least effective.
So what you’re proposing is that the United States should have engaged in a massive, costly and bloody military operation that was completely unnecessary to the task at hand, thereby enraging all its allies and destroying US/Arab relations for fifty years, not to mention seriously weakening the U.S.'s moral standing in the eyes of pretty much the entire world, spawing Christ only knows how many other conflicts and out-and-out wars. You’re also saying that the reason the U.S. did not embark on this idiotic course of action was solely because of Colin Powell, despite the fact that Powell was just doing what his commander-in-chief was telling him to do, even though you don’t even remember who was involved in these decisions.
Oooookay.
The U.S. won the Gulf War in spectacular and overwhelming fashion. It was the most successful military operation in the history of the United States. The enemy was completely and soundly defeated. Powell was rught about Bosnia, too, unless you’re saying that NATO’s horribly executed air assault, which destroyed more civilian vehicles than military vehicles, was somehow a tremendously well-run operation.
Colounsbury, I am glad you came, but you did not answer my question: how come the most outstanding African American of his generation ignored or frowned upon by the community leaders? Do you think that Colin Powell is not a good role model (and why) or do you think the leaders are no good? You gave us a good analysis of Colin Powell political deeds, what’s your take on his perception by the American Blacks? Why are they silent at best? Even here?
Bibliophage, sorry for my first typo. And thank you for catching this all important error. I hope, that it did not ruin your understanding of the thread and did not spoil you weekend.
It would be interesting to know what Thomas Sowell says about the appointment. One of the most disappointing aspects of race relations or ethnic questions is the assumption by both sides that a racial or ethnic group is monolithic in their opinions. Yes, one can observe that “most” black people believe such-and-such, and this is sometimes useful in considering political tactics, but there ARE black conservatives like Sowell about.
Colin Powell is eminently qualified for the job, and while not in line for sainthood, IMO, is certainly bright, capable, and worthy of “role-model-hood”. As for his “deafening silence”, remember that he has NOT been a candidate for public office, and has been under no obligation to say anything in public if he doesn’t want to. Being a bit mortar-mouthed is usually a good attribute in a military figure, actually. When you have a general that likes to run at the mouth it’s usually a flambouyant one like Patton or MacArthur. Entertaining, but they would have been disasters in political office.
All that aside, I’m certain Bush was eager to appoint Powell because of his race as well. On a tactical level, he wants to defuse the “race card” being played concerning the Florida ballot counts, and probably figures that appointing Powell takes a lot of wind out of Jesse Jackson’s sails, without seriously compromising his position with the ideologues within his own party, or putting somebody he is really uneasy with on his cabinet. If he has any sense, he needs to appoint a high-profile Democrat, too. Trouble is, he can’t pull from the Senate very easily because of the possibility of upsetting the 50-50 balance.
BTW, Bernie Ward is rapidly becoming a charicature. He used to be a reasonably articulate liberal voice back in the days when he would face off against Lee Rogers on a regular basis, but now he jerks his knees so regularly that I’m surprised he can walk without crutches.
There is a common misconception that African-Americans think as a block. This is simply not true; Blacks are as diverse in their opinions and willingness to express them as any other segment of American society. If the intent of the OP is to question the legitamacy of Powell’s appointment because there is some disagreement within the Black community, I would submit that your conclusion is based on the false assumption that all African-Americans should think alike.
SNL took a below-the-belt shot at Bush last night, during the Weekend Update: "Today, President-Elect George W. Bush appointed Gen. Colin Powell Secretary of “Pleast Don’t Hate Me, Black People”.
Fear, I never considered myself as primitive as you suspect I am. I just followed the common trends: if somebody claims that Gen. Powell “does not represents African-Americans”, somebody else supposedly represent them? All of them? Or do you imply that Al Sharptons can speak for themselves and “African-American” is their polspeak? Of course, I understand that there are families (black and non-black) in America where kids hear: “Do your home work, and you’ll be as Colin Powell when you grow up”. On the other hand, being non-black, I have no first hand knowledge of “average Black Joe”. I do not go to Black churches, or meetings, etc. The media expose Al Sharptons (yes, they succed and attract media attention). So, I asked my question here. And I got all sorts of political analysis and historical reveiws, but not the answer. Frustrating.
So, are you the first sober voice here who says that Gen. Powell did not sell his people (united or diverse), when he agreed to be the SecState for his country, not necessarily for GWB (even if the latter is evil)?
