Is Colin Powell borrowing what is probably his most famous quote?

Great Debates
1

Colin Powell, former U.S. Army general (four stars) and United States Secretary of State, is often quoted as making the following ringing quote (in differing forums, depending on the teller):

“Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we hve ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

The origins, exact quotes and sources, and the controversy around Powell and this quote may be found on the Urban Legends site. Here is the address I have.

Not explored on the Urban Legends site, nor on another famous quote site I checked out, is whether Colin Powell borrowed the quote unconsciously from an earlier remark in a memoir written by WW II general Mark W. Clark, telling of Clark’s World War experiences and particularly his story of the Italian Campaign, which he directed as commander of American and Allied forces advancing up the West coast of Italy.

Clark wrote a remarkably similar comment to Powell’s in the introduction to his book “Calculated Risk,” Harper & Brothers, New York, 1950, 1st Edition hardbound, pages 6 and 7. In “The Road Back to Rome,” his introductory account of returning to Italy after the war with his wife, Clark says this:

“Thus, in one sense, my trip along the road back to Rome tended to impose new scenes that blurred my sharp memories of the war in Itally – until on Memorial Day we visited the American cemetery at Anzio and saw the curving rows of white crosses that spoke so eloquently of the price that America and her Allies had paid for the liberation of Italy. If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not for conquest, it could be found in these cemeteries. Here was our only conquest: all we asked of Italy was enough of her soil to bury our gallant dead.”

As a young officer candidate, did Colin Powell read these eloquent words by Clark, internalize their essence in admiration (forgetting their origin, as we all do from time to time), and later reproduce a variant in his own words – now become one of his most famous quotes?

2

Give me a minute while I research the reading list of cadet Powell. I’m sure I have it around here somewhere.

3

We might reasonably speculate that the bestselling memoir of General Mark W. Clark, American commander in Italy, planner and victor at the key amphibious landings of Salerno and Anzio, victor over the Germans at the nearly impossible position of Monte Cassino, who captured Rome and accepted the German surrender of Italy near the end of the war, might well have been read by a young Cadet Powell, either as assigned material or from personal interest.

Clark was a close associate of Eisenhower, who was his mentor; he was a planner of the American invasion of North Africa (Operation Torch) – including a dangerous mission on the ground to meet with French officials willing to cooperate. After the invasion, he was the chief negotiator with French military and government officials in the convoluted and delicate effort to get a “Free French” force to separate itself from the Vichy government and to join the allies. That force later was critical to the Allied victory in the Italian campaign.

Clark’s book was well-received, some critics thought it better than Eisenhower’s. Certainly, the clarity and detail of the maps alone are worth the price of the book. I don’t think it’s too great a stretch to assume Clark and his memoir came to Powell’s attention at some point.

4

Borrowed or not, it certainly is not accurate. That’s very observant, in any case.

5

I apologize for the hijack, but all of this glowing praise of Clark is turning my stomach. History has not looked kindly on the man, regardless of how eloquent his memoirs may be. He was hands down the worst army level general in the US Army during WW2. He was inept, incompetent, self-aggrandizing and an Anglophobe to boot, not a good quality for someone in his position working alongside, under the command of, and with troops under his command from Britain. He spent a great deal of time blaming Montgomery for his situation at Salerno when being able to hold the beachhead was still up in the air. His advice to General Lucas before landing at Anzio was “don’t stick your neck out,” but he had no problem with Lucas being made the sacrificial goat when someone’s head had to roll. The victory at Monte Cassino had nothing to do with Clark; indeed his relationship with it was the incredibly ill-advised, disastrous attempt to cross the Rapido River which resulted in over 2,100 casualties to the US 36th Infantry Division in under 48 hours. After the war Clark became the only general in US history to be the subject of a congressional investigation instigated by his own men:

So much for being well loved by his men. Finally, as for Rome, yes he did capture it. He made sure there was a huge press spectacle for his triumphant entry into Rome and was greatly upset that his place in the newspaper headlines was quickly lost when the D-Day landings started two days later. A quick look at how he took Rome is in order though: as part of Operation Diadem, the US VI Corps was to break out from Anzio and head east, cutting off the retreat of German 10th Army, leaving them trapped and with no option but to surrender. Fearing the dread British would somehow try to steal his glory of being the one to take Rome (despite the fact that none of the British had any such intentions), he ordered VI Corps to head northwest, to Rome, allowing 10th Army to escape. Truscott, the commander of VI Corps:

Bluntly, Clark cared more about having his picture on the front page than about the lives of his men. Those seven German divisions he allowed to escape in order to feed his own ego would go on to kill many more soldiers under his command.

6

You are welcome to hijack. All opinion on this is welcome.

7

In that case, I think you’re mistaken about it probably being his most famous quote. Ask a hundred people at random, and I’d guess the first thing most would associate with him is some variation of, “You break it, you buy it.”

For myself, the first thing I think of is, “These are not assertions, these are facts,” during his WMD presentation to the UN.

8

Well, the WMD fiasco is a mystery. The results of an exhaustive search on the ground, demonstrate clearly that either it was a political argument that didn’t pan out with media-genic examples, as planned. All that was found was remnants of Saddam’s earlier programs, leaving two questions unanswered. 1.) Was everyone who supported the WMD argument incompetent, and, if not 2.) what WAS the reason for the invasion?

I’m surprised Powell put his prestige on the line for this argument, since I got the impression he did NOT agree with the invasion of Iraq.

I’m even more surprised that nobody seems too interested in Powell’s appropriation of Clark’s memorial day remark, being more interested in beating up on Clark as a military leader (undeserved) or implying the U.S. gained some “conquest” from WW II, rendering both Clark and Powell’s shared observation untrue.

I also thought Powell would have more defenders, which is why I put this under “Great Debates.” Guess it should have been posted under “Mundane Stuff I Just Had to Share.”

9

Where did you get that impression from? He’s a good guy so he can’t actually be flexible enough on the Powell doctrine to really be trying to pass off that piss-poor snow job on the UN?

I have to ask, do you have some personal relation to Mark Clark? The man was an incompetent butcher of the highest caliber, placing the lives of his men beneath his desire to make the front page. He deserves all of the scorn that history has placed on him, I’d recommend Carlo D’Este’s Fatal Decision: Anzio and the Battle for Rome for a good look at his incompetence in general and his decision to turn VI Corps 135 degrees in particular.

10

I agree; the “Pottery Barn Rule” was the first quote I thought of in association with Colin Powell (while he claims the quote is accurate, the term itself was actually coined by Thomas Friedman). I also recall someone (Al Franken maybe?) checked and found that this actually is not the policy in force at Pottery Barn–they write off broken merchandise at a loss (which I guess is what the US eventually did in Iraq as well).

11

I don’t regard Powell as a “good guy” anymore than any of the rest of our professional political class. I am surprised he humiliated himself so thoroughly before the U.N., however. The motive is a mystery to me, and as such is at the core of why we actually went to war in Iraq. The war proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no credible WMD threat, only a few dangerous remnants. The reports of one Iraqi general and “several” Syrian defectors that the stocks were moved to Syria are not credible, unless the entire intelligence apparatus of the West is completely incompetent.

As Secretary of State, Powell opposed the second Iraq war, and fought a long twilight political battle with the Bush White House over it. You may remember the ridiculous theatrics over the female CIA agent who was supposed to have been “outed,” and which was a part of that battle (and lost by the Bush side despite the fact that it was a Powell associate who had actually “outed” the woman to a reporter – a fact known but unreported by media; in any event, but for politics this particular “outing” probably was not a prosecutable offense).

The “outing” drama ultimately went back to whether Uranium “Yellow cake” was bought in Niger for Iraq, as asserted by the the Bush White House as part of the WMD argument they were trying to gin up. The woman’s husband had investigated it and made a negative report, and when the Bush people went after his credibility a bureaucratic political war broke out with Powell.

During Gulf War I, Powell was also the one who decided to let Saddam’s elite forces retire from Kuwait without slaughtering them on the roads back to Iraq. He was thus a key author of the inconclusive end to that war, in the sense that we left Saddam in power, weakened: very “strategic;” very New Age diplomacy; very too-smart-by-half in the event.

We expected nature would take its course and Saddam would be ousted by the strongest legitimate political force in Iraq. Also, our Arab allies didn’t want us to remove Saddam outright – bad precedent – they just wanted him run out of Kuwait and his claws clipped so he couldn’t credibly threaten his neighbors again or effectively suppress his internal opposition.

For Powell to turn around after all that and contradict himself before the U.N. in support of a policy you oppose and people you dislike is akin to drinking out of a toilet you’ve just used. I would have thought that beneath Powell, who seemed possessed of some dignity.

I’m still debating whether I’m willing to do ONE round with you on Mark Clark. I’ll decide that, not you, so provocative hyperbole will get you nowhere.

12

Why the emphasis on the ‘unconscious’ aspect of his quote? He may have just deliberately grabbed/stolen the line. Nothing wrong with that-it wasn’t a doctoral dissertation, it was some speech.
Also, it being in re: a military context, he may very well have believed that the audience was familiar enough with the phrase that it would be a worn out cliche to do the attribution.

13

I’m not trying to do “rounds” with you about Mark Clark, and I could care less what you are willing to do or not. I’m providing factual information about Clark, nothing I’ve written about him is either provocative or hyperbole. I have exaggerated not one iota about him, his incompetence, his Anglophobia, his advice to Lucas at Anzio, the butchery he insisted upon carrying out at the Rapido River against all advice that it was doomed to bloody failure from the start, Congress convening an inquiry against him over the Rapido bloodbath at the behest of the soldiers of the 36th Infantry Division he sent to be slaughtered there, his vainglorious decision to turn VI Corps 135 degrees and allow the German 10th Army to escape, or that in doing so he was being disloyal to his commander, British General Alexander. All of those are facts; none of them have the smallest amount of hyperbole.

14

Well then, given the purity of motive and unimpeachable authority you claim here, I guess I’ll let readers decide for themselves whether that POV is full and complete, the last word on the matter.

15

Just FYI, but most readers don’t find, “You’re wrong, but I’m not going to waste time telling you why,” to be a compelling argument.

16

The quote is pretty obscure: the introduction of a book popular in 1951. I really don’t think Powell would approprate a quote (or its essential element) without attribution, particularly from an accomplished fellow soldier like Mark Clark. I assume it was unconscious. Colin Powell is a lot of things today as a politician, but I regard him as an honorable man (that is why I was suprised by his performance at the U.N., which I don’t understand, given the lack of results on the ground in Iraq).

You hear a lot of bitter claims about “borrowed” ideas and material in the Academy and the Arts; barring some evidence of intent, like partially quoted sentences or nearly indentical structure, I give the benefit of the doubt to coincidence or unconscious influence – which is really a form of flattery.

17

Well, thank you for your interpretation and for speaking for most readers. I’ll add that to my information file.

18

Oh, I see you are a moderator. In that case, I didn’t start this thread to discuss Clark’s war record, but a quote by Colin Powell.

I didn’t object when “Dissonance” chose to insert his strong views on Clark as a general. Fair enough. I remarked that I didn’t agree with them in addressing another posting, and got in reply from “Dissonance” a repeat demand that I defend Clark, which I considered, as I told him.

I wrote a defense of Clark, based on his account of the campaign in Italy, answering each of the assertions by “Dissonance,” which I have on a thumb drive at my elbow as I write this, but on reading the next posting by “Dissonance,” which seemed to me to assert his own infallibility and final authority on the matter prior to my posting my reply, I decided given that the final word is on the table I really have no obligation to be drawn into this peripheral argument on Clark.

“Dissonance” has had his say and offered a citation for his evidence. Readers are free to research this question for themselves. My issue (now apparently pretty much expended) is the provenance of the Colin Powell quote.

19

I’m not a military historian, more like an innocent passerby, but I would like to read your rebuttal re: Clark if you’re wanting to post it.

And tangentially the ire directed towards Clark especially from Texans might provide context for the Powell quote; many people, including WWII vets still living, can arrive at those thoughts independently when facing charges of American Imperialism or excessive fondness for or reliance upon military power, all of which were coming from Europe. Powell merely gave an elegant response to what people in Texas (and other places) might think warranted a middle finger and not much else. IMO.

20

No, you said

I didn’t demand you defend Clark once, much less twice. There is nothing for you to defend. You then went on to claim I was engaging in provocative hyperbole. I have not. Nothing I have said is either untrue or exaggerated in the slightest bit. I hardly consider myself unimpeachable, but you’ll generally find I know what I’m talking about on military and historical matters in general and WW2 in particular. I even provided cites for everything I wrote. And Miller is right, people here aren’t going to be swayed much by claims that I’m wrong but you’re not going to waste time telling me why. Even more so when you claim to have actually wasted the time and written out why I am wrong, sitting on your thumb drive, but you’re not going to post it. If you don’t want to get drawn into a peripheral argument on Clark, don’t claim I’m engaging in provocative hyperbole when I’m not.