Colin Powell Speaks Out Against The Handling Of Iraq
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in History, Smart Things Said By Smart People, The War On Terrorism, United Nations, WarWow.
Let me say that again…wow.
I NEVER expected this move from Powell, but I’m glad he’s speaking out now. Many on the left decried his speech at the U.N. even when our media trumpeted it as an open and shut case. Now he’s saying it was a low point in his career.
In any event, this is a major step towards getting some honesty in the debate about the situation in Iraq and I’m glad he’s come forward.
From the Times Online
COLIN POWELL, the former US Secretary of State, harshly criticised the Bush Administration yesterday for its failures in Iraq, calling the country a mess and voicing concerns that it may slide into civil war.General Powell, who left the Administration in January, also said that his speech in February 2003 to the UN, making the case for war, was a painful blot on his record.
Making his most damning remarks about the conduct of the war since he was replaced by Condoleezza Rice, General Powell criticised the White House and Pentagon for their post-war planning and failure to send sufficient troops.
And this claim is even bolder still:
General Powell said that he had “never seen evidence to suggest� a connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the regime of Saddam Hussein, unlike Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who has made such a claim.
Whoa. This is going to open up the political floodgates in a way I think few of us can appreciate right now. Expect the President’s approval rating to drop even further after this news.
So what are his thoughts about the future of Iraq?
He said that there was little option now but to continue investing in the Iraqi Armed Forces. Despite his hesitation about the war � “I’m always a reluctant warrior� � he said that he was glad that Saddam and his regime had been removed.Voicing concerns about the possibility of civil war, he said: “A way has to be found for the Sunnis to be brought into the political process. You cannot let . . . Iraq devolve into a mini-state in the north, a larger mini-state in the south and sort of nothing in the middle.�
Well said Colin. You now have my respect back.
I mean, not that you knew you lost it in the first place…but still…you’ve got it back.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 11th, 2005 and is filed under History, Smart Things Said By Smart People, The War On Terrorism, United Nations, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 11th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Yes a very interesting interview.
But then again, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. I am glad however that he came straight about his speech in the UN, even at the time I thought there was a flicker of distaste in his face as he read it.
September 11th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Whenever I read somebody criticizing situation X, and see people heaping praise on him simply for criticizing situation X, I also want to know, what does this person think should have been done differently?
So he doesn’t say “don’t go to war.” He doesn’t say “use a lighter touch.” He says “impose our will on the whole country.” I’ll leave it to you to imagine what that might look like, in terms of shooting looters or handling Fallujah. And I’ll leave it to the people now applauding Powell to decide whether they want to applaud that, too.
In the longer view, Rumsfeld’s war plan in Iraq tossed out the whole Powell “doctrine” of overwhelming numbers. Naturally, there’s a degree of personal rivalry here, and I cen well imagine Powell is in some sense gloating inside — though too much of a gentleman and too concerned for his nation to say anything about it — as the whole world sees that enough troops to overthrow Saddam wasn’t enough troops to pacify the country and secure its borders.
I[m curious; what do you see in that that you don’t also read in Pres. Bush, Condi Rice, or anyone else who takes Iraq seriously.
I’d be more curious to hear Powell’s thoughts on his role in the 1991 decision to allow Saddam to stay in power after driving him from Kuwait and chasing him halfway back to Baghdad. I wonder if he considers that, too, a “blot” on his record.
September 11th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Cal,
Respectfully, I really think “heaping praise” is a pretty big overstatement of what’s going on with my post, and I make the assumption you’re talking about mine since you didn’t link to anything else. I mean, all I’ve said is that he’s gained my respect back because he’s brought some honesty back into this debate. If that’s heaping praise, then so be it.
Now, I realize that many seem to not really care how we went about selling the war because they believe Saddam shoud have been taken out years ago. But I did care, do care and will always care because it threatens our credibility to use preemptive action again. I don’t understand why the pro-war crowd doesn’t seem to fully appreciate this “credibility issue.” Of course we’ll always have more credibility than a dictator, but do you really think we can just keep pushing secondary cases for invasion as the primary when the REAL primary reason is blatantly obvious to all?
And can you imagine us trying to sell a war like this again? I honestly don’t think we can’t do it. Many in the world think we’re liars, and now Powell has essentially admitted that we weren’t really being honest. That’s a big deal and a step in the right direction towards getting our credibility back.
Lastly, my comment about getting his respect back was addressing all of his comments. Some of his sentiments are voiced by the administration and some are not. In my book, he’s come a long way from his days defending obviously flawed arguments. The others are still stuck in a very intellectually dishonest place and until they own up to that, they’ll never really be able to gain my respect.