Let us hope that
Colin Powell has the courage to insist on his convictions,
even if that
should result some day in his resignation as Secretary of State.
Although unnamed
“White House aides” reassuringly insist that the former
general’s public
disagreements with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are
nothing worse
than an early policy shakeout, the truth is that Mr. Powell holds
an entirely
different (and considerably saner) world view than
that of the
Vice President and the Defense Secretary.
Were it not so,
the embarrassing reversals suffered by Mr.
Powell in recent
days, on matters ranging from Korea to
Kosovo, would
have been avoided. After all—as we are
constantly informed
by the admiring Washington press
corps—this second
Bush Presidency is a very, very tight ship
indeed. Preserving
that image has always been among the
highest priorities
of George W. Bush and his aides. So their
repeated put-downs
of Mr. Powell before the entire world must
have involved
at least a degree of calculation.
Now the former
warrior appears to be quarantined politically. He finds himself
under attack
from conservatives allied with the Cheney-Rumsfeld faction. Armchair
militarists
at The Weekly Standard warn that the Secretary of State is a closet
Clintonite,
for example, while former fringe Presidential candidate Gary Bauer
suggests that
any cabinet official, such as Mr. Powell, who dares to dissent from
right-wing orthodoxy
might be “taken to the woodshed.”
Interesting advice,
but who would take him out there—this callow President? A
more incongruous
scene is hard to imagine. Actually, Mr. Bush seems intent on
placating Mr.
Powell with a billion-dollar increase in the State Department budget.
Despite that
fiscal consolation, however, there is already ample reason for Mr.
Powell to wonder
why he took this job in the first place. In fact, there have long
been plenty
of reasons to wonder why a man with his moderate views should cling
to a party that
has veered so far rightward. The current chill between him and his
fellow Republicans
echoes his scolding speech at the G.O.P. convention in
Philadelphia
last summer. (He probably didn’t appreciate the entertainment value of
that strange
event.)
As a Bronx native
who earned his rank in combat and worked his way up through
the ranks, Mr.
Powell has never fit in too well with tough-talking cowboys, like Mr.
Cheney, whose
perennially hawkish views never prevented them from wangling a
draft deferment.
It is the difference between real toughness and its unreasonable
facsimile that
defines the debate between the Powell and Cheney factions.
Pseudo-toughness
requires hard-line posturing rather than prudent policy. The
pseudo-tough
position on North Korea is to repudiate former President Clinton’s
diplomatic efforts
on the peninsula, even if that means undermining the democratic
government in
South Korea. The pseudo-tough position on Iraq is to continue the
current sanctions
despite their inhumanity and ineffectiveness, while pretending that
somebody is
going to overthrow Saddam Hussein someday. The pseudo-tough
position on
Kosovo is to promote conflict rather than cooperation with our
European allies,
regardless of the damage to important multilateral relationships. The
pseudo-tough
view of nuclear peril is to insist on building an outrageously expensive
“national missile
defense” which won’t work, casually wrecking the arms-control
regime constructed
with immense difficulty over the past three decades.
The results are
likely to be bad news for everyone except Mr. Bush’s friends and
contributors
in the defense industry. Pseudo-toughness encourages similar attitudes
elsewhere, such
as the announcement by the Russians that they have stopped
dismantling
strategic weapons as agreed under current treaties with the United
States.
It was predictable
that Mr. Powell would take exception to this kind of contagious
idiocy, if only
because he has done so in the recent past. He was among the few
courageous Republicans
to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty two years
ago, when Mr.
Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush were helping to insure that the agreement
was stymied
by their friends in the Senate.
That was one
of the grossest acts of irresponsible isolationism committed in
Washington since
before World War II. It revealed divergent perspectives about
America’s role
in the world that seem impossible to reconcile, with Mr. Powell
taking sides
against nearly everyone who would later become his colleagues (and
antagonists)
in this administration.
No doubt the
Secretary of State has convinced himself that his pragmatic
internationalism
will ultimately prevail. But his role within the Republican Party has
been less that
of a leader than of a good soldier and handsome object for display.
Unless he is
willing to speak out loudly and often, he will finally be forced to
harmonize with
the hard-right choir.
It is Mr. Powell’s
duty to himself and his country to avoid that fate.
You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com