January 27, 2003
THE VOICE OF MULTILATERALISM:
Powell, in Europe, Nearly Dismisses U.N.'s Iraq Report (MARK LANDLER and ALAN COWELL, January 27, 2003, NY Times)Though the United States had hoped to forge a consensus among its allies, Mr. Powell said, the lack of a coalition would not deter the Bush administration. "When we feel strongly about something, we will lead, we will act, even if others are not prepared to join us," he said. [...]"To those who say, why not give the inspection process more time, I ask, how much more time does Iraq need to answer these questions?" Mr. Powell said.
"We're in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but clearly time is running out," he said. "We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction." [...]
"I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of, or apologize for, with respect to what America has done for the world," he said in response to a question asking why the United States always falls back on the use of "hard power" instead of the "soft power" of diplomacy.
Mr. Powell noted that the United States had sent its soldiers into foreign wars over the last century, most recently in Afghanistan, without having imperial designs on the territories it secured.
"We've put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives," he said, his voice growing hoarse. "We've asked for nothing but enough land to bury them in."
It's one thing for Howell Raines and company to have been duped, but there are many on the Right who should be sitting down to a plate of crow right now also (two plates--if we add their steel tarrif confusion). Remember all the folks calling for Mr. Powell to resign or for President Bush to "get him in line"? Mr. Powell could have given this speech when they demanded it, to no effect. Instead, by waiting and giving it now, he seals the deal. That's the difference between governing and punditing.
MORE:
Whither Colin Powell? (Robert Novak, January 27, 2003, Townhall.com)
Since Colin Powell has been relied upon to impede the nation's march to war in Iraq, apprehensive Republicans were startled last week by his suddenly bellicose rhetoric.Posted by Orrin Judd at January 27, 2003 10:40 AM
So what have we been waiting for? Not for allies to get on board, according to Powell.
Not in hopes that Iraq would come around.
So, why?
It's been a mighty costly pause.
Orrin,
Let's wait to serve the delicious black birds until Saddam's body is dragged trough the streets of Baghdad by his former slaves, er, I mean his former voters ;-)
Harry:
Weather and troop deployments.
I need one helping; but I owe Powell an apology.
Posted by: Christopher Badeaux at January 27, 2003 4:20 PMI must agree with Harry that's it's been a very costly pause. It's also not clear that we wouldn't be better off if the State department had been firm and in tune from the start. As far as I can tell, the only progress here is that Powell has finally been mugged by reality. How, exactly, are we better for Powell's equivocation? How does his speech seal the deal? What is different?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 27, 2003 5:52 PMWe could have deployed such troops as
we've got -- we're short of infantry --
long ago, thanks to the forward-positioning
strategy of Jimmy Carter, the last
militarily competent commander in chief.
Weather is a mere detail. We have an
all-weather army, navy and air force.
Harry/AOG:
Yoiu seem to want to forsake a quick and relatively easy victory, well-prepared for and fought in optimal conditions, for the visceral thrill of attacking last June with a stick and a spoon.
Among other things, we've been waiting while our command post was moved out of Saudi Arabia, reassembled in Qatar and then debugged.
You do *not* want the command center to have a network crash in the middle of a war.
Among other things, we've been waiting while our command post was moved out of Saudi Arabia, reassembled in Qatar and then debugged.
You do *not* want the command center to have a network crash in the middle of a war.