February 26, 2004
HICKORY STICKS:
Rumsfeld v Powell: beyond good and evil: Donald Rumsfeld is the neo-conservative architect of war, Colin Powell the cuddly multilateralist. Right? Wrong. Behind the caricature is a titanic Washington struggle far more complicated and interesting. (John C. Hulsman, 23 - 2 - 2004, Open Democracy)
The truth of the competition for the foreign policy soul of the Bush administration lies not in cliché but in history. Colin Powell is the champion of the realist school of thought, which has been prevalent in America since Alexander Hamilton convinced Congress to support the Jay Treaty with England in 1794. Realism, an ideology based above all else on furthering American national interests (it must be said by either unilateral or multilateral means), is as far from the cuddly Wilsonian idealism that many Europeans ascribe to Powell as it is possible to be. [...][A]s a staunch believer in the transatlantic alliance, Rumsfeld is far more a Washington operator than he is an ideologue, unlike neo-conservatives such as his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the thrusting hawks clustered around vice-president Dick Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. In fact, although “neo-conservative” is the current watchword for all that is malign in European eyes about the Bush administration’s foreign policy, it is an open question as to whether Rumsfeld is one at all.
Strict neo-conservatives see America as the new Rome, the only global power of significance in an otherwise dangerous and chaotic world. Donald Rumsfeld’s famous dictum, “the mission determines the coalition – the coalition does not determine the mission”, may not be music to the ears of European believers in the multipolar ideal; but it is far from the neo-conservative belief that pursuing coalitions is pointless.
When push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of Americans are Jacksonians, which means all our leaders have to be. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2004 11:29 PM
Go Rumsfeld and the neo-cons !! (Even if he's not a card-carrying member).
Like oj's concepts that the US should have nuked the USSR after WWII, and should nuke China now, I hope that in twenty years or so, when the US' military is mostly autonomous, uncrewed battle 'droids, America and her allies will unleash a global tidal wave of liberal-democracy-by-force.
At the very least, a global ripple of no-more-bloodstained-dictators.
Since the US will account for about half of the entire world's economic output by then, a judicious squeeze between the threat of military force, and a threat of economic ruin, should keep the bloodshed to a minimum.
Although, I suppose that there's much to be said for totally crushing your enemies, to convince them (and observers, a la Libya) that you mean business.
I still wonder at the need of the beltway crew to make up stories about the members of the administration like the gods of olympus quarreling amongst themselves in order to explain the weather.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 27, 2004 11:34 AMWell said, Robert. I'd take it a step further. The press and the academy can't understand a vibrant management team with ideological or strategic differences. In their own worlds enforced idealogical uniformity is the norm.
GWB's approach is pure B-school, have a talented team with a range of opinions so that the Chief Exec's opinions don't get stagnant. As long as the disagreements stay above-board and as long as all sides recognize that the Chief Exec values the other positions, it can work well over a long period of time. Also, neither side always wins so all involved know the game is fair.
Grown-ups like Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. understand this and can operate well within the system. The stunted development of a lot of journalists and academics prevents them from "getting it".
Posted by: Jeff at February 27, 2004 3:04 PM