| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Powell to take the rap for failed diplomacy? |
| 2003-03-17 |
| Recrimination at the failure of US diplomacy has begun in Washington, one source close to the administration admitting yesterday: "This has been the worst American diplomatic debacle of our lifetime." Administration sources suggest that this is the prelude to a postwar bloodletting in which the secretary of state, Colin Powell, will be the fall guy. He will be blamed for encouraging George Bush to take the issue to the UN, for failing to grasp the extent and power of French and Russian opposition, failing to anticipate that the weapons inspectors would not adhere to the US's timetable, and for his puzzling refusal to pursue the kind of shuttle diplomacy normal in the state department for the past 30 years. There's no way anyone in Washington could have known about French intransigence. After all, the Frenchies voted for 1441. Right up to about January or so, we looked like we were going to have the best of both worlds — deal with the Iraqis and have UN approval for doing so. "There's a recognition this has not been our finest diplomatic hour," the New York Times quoted a senior official as saying on Friday, adding that his voice was "dripping with understatement". In the Washington Post James Mann of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies described the administration's foreign policy as "a major intellectual failure" that would have consequences long after the war is over. This aspect of the crisis has finally given Democratic contenders for the 2004 presidential election — most of them terrified to attack the president directly over Iraq — an issue they can hammer home without having their patriotism impugned. Oh, please. There isn't a Democrat out there who can win his party's nomination who can make the Iraq war a winning issue for his party. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #25 Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT" I picked up on that too.Screw-em,let our allies,espically central/east Euorpe,have first crack at the contracts. TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH: Just another status quo weennie,whats the matter afraid to stand-up and be counted,Anonon? |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-18 08:04:02 |
| #24 TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH: I just watched your ultimatum speech. Yes GW, it is "suicide" to let rogue elements control WMD. So why are you delivering WMD into the hands of Pakistan jihadis? You pressured elections in Pakistan, in context of the Islamist plague in that country. There can be no doubt about what these would-be killers of Americans will do. http://www/jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2003-daily/18-03-2003/main/main14.htm If you don't like the way that the semi-secular tyrant in Iraq feels about "evidence" disclosure, then why are you injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the Pakistan jihad state that quantifies human veracity, according to perverse religist dictate: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2003-daily/17-03-2003/oped/o5.htm The unholy-koran orders Muslims to refrain from taking "Jews and Christians" as friends. It is time you took that seriously. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/15_03_03_c.htm And your "faith based social initiatives" are fertilizing the gradual Islamization of America. This is what stage 2 will bring: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-3-2003_pg3_3 This is what the Saddamites think of your limited war plans: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/600/re6.htm I expect that one week after Iraq falls, you will begin its delivery to Saudi Arabia. |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-03-17 20:01:43 |
| #23 The heat of the moment is probably not the best time to speculate on what went wrong. Did the 15-0 vote for Res 1441 lead the administration to a level of overconfidence? Did the administration push the demands for regime change appear slightly arrogant? Was 4 months of inspection sufficient to identify Iraq's intrangicence? Or was France just stringing along all the time. Clearly The US sees a clear and present danger in Iraq that most other countries in the world simply deny. And at the end of today, a lot of people have woken up to the oxymoron: UN action. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-17 18:44:14 |
| #22 --Every day this process goes on, he said, the weaker the US and UK's position becomes.-- Why did FLA 2000 spring to mind?! |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-17 18:29:25 |
| #21 I was reading Le Monde on Thursday and de Villepin was talking to UMP (Chirac's party) parlimentarians behind closed doors. Witnesses said how happy he was with the way (obstructing things, in other words) were going. Every day this process goes on, he said, the weaker the US and UK's position becomes. A few of these backbenchers were definitely worried thinking about the negative long-term effects of the short-term gloire pour la France would have vis a vis US/New Europe vs. Old Europe. De Villepin and Fischer had better remember that the new EU will have 25 countries, each of which currently will have veto power over policy. Two can play the vote game, which is why the French/Germans will probably try to make policy vote approval between 50%-75%. One thing guys, about yesterday. Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT UNSC. If the Frogs want a place at the table, they can reserve a conference room at the Al-Rasheed and present their case to the Iraqis. We don't need to give them a resolution so that the duplicitous ones can feel no pain. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-03-17 15:18:49 |
| #20 LiberalHawk, You might be confused by some of our recent Secretaries of State who did the globetrotting. Time was when we had ambassadors deliver the message and a Secretary of State who stayed home and figured out how to implement the policies of the president. I'm thinking of John Foster Dulles who wasn't too shabby a SoS. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-17 11:28:00 |
| #19 W and Tony are going to the mat because they're Christian?? Could it also be because of our ties, we were there in the beginning and we'll be with you in the end? Never let yourselves be separated from the Americans? Especially after what frankenreich pulled? He saw the future? And considering Tony was supposed to be Bubba's bud. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-17 11:08:23 |
| #18 Powell played the "good cop" and can sleep well at night knowing he played the part the best it could be played... and every "think tank" pundit said the botton line is we had to have the "patina" of UN legitimacy to move forward, which we do not have... but it is "2 new moons" past the best timeline to bring saddam to "meet with the accountants"... George Will said it best yesterday when he said we should bring in the French in a couple of weeks to translate the Iraqi archives when the extent of the the real relationship between the French and saddam becomes known. Historically, Colin had to deal with a world that has noticed since the last US election that America is more divided in political mindset than any time since the 60's, and the time is ripe to thumb their noses at the good old USA. This to will pass, and when the dust has settled, and the worlds politicians wake up, those countries who have "obviously not been brought up right" will realized "they have missed a good opportunity to have remained silent"... (to quote one of the worlds great windbags) |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-03-17 10:08:36 |
| #17 Powell's job is to be the dove. Rummy's is to be the hawk. This is a team effort. No doubt, the universe (i.e., President Bush's plan) is unfolding as it should--or at least, as expected. To our troops: good luck, good hunting, and come home safe. |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-03-17 10:06:04 |
| #16 While we busied getting our troops ready, Powell's very public belief in the goodness of man coming together to unite against a globally destructive butcher was a stark contrast to the vicious back-stabbing, naked power-grabbing, up-yours-USA attitude that was exposed in the UN. Let the media say whatever they want. The end result was (vote or no vote) a very public display of the UN's real motives. With few shots fired, it became crystal clear who our allies really are, a very good thing. Our "allies" are left standing naked, exposed. Their complaint that they didn't like they way we asked for their help is all they are left with. Oh boo hoo hoo. It may give the disgruntled hate-America-first crowd something to cling to today, but it's shallow, meaningless and won't hold up in the harsh light of history. On the other hand...Powell's effort to solve it peacefully WILL prevail and will provide valuable lessons for future efforts to resolve such conflicts without war. I applaud Powell - he's truly a good man. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-17 09:13:00 |
| #15 Its not that Powell could have made Chirac reasonable - its that maybe he could have done a better job of isolating Chirac. How many times have we heard Powell quoted speaking to the House Appropraitons comm re Iraq? WAhat was he doing on the Hill, why wasnt he globetrotting? Isnt that what a Sec of State does. Im not sure that it would have helped, but its certainly possible, and will i think be a worthwhile question in coming months. Doesnt matter to Rummy and the conservative hawks, for whom the problem was the concept (as noted above) and doesnt matter to the doves, to whom Powell is still a hero. It does matter to the harderline among the multilateral hawks on the Dem side. Eseentially Leiberman, Edwards, Gephardt. Do any of them have a chance??? I dont know, but if the Iraq war goes well i have a hard time seeing any of the doves having a real chance. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-17 08:56:35 |
| #14 This was not a failure of diplomacy since there was no chance for it to succeed to begin with. The purpose was to show good faith on the U.S.'s part. Powell did the best anyone could. He should be applauded for his work. |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-03-17 08:39:16 |
| #13 It's easier and more enjoyable for most to blame Bush, Rumsfeld and France. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-17 08:10:40 |
| #12 Raptor - exactly right - all this whining about a failure of diplomacy ignores the obvious obstructionism and naked power grab by the French. Diplomacy absolutely CANNOT work under these circumstances. I wish it had worked out; now we are smarter and the world has learned a few things about itself. |
| Posted by: Jeff Brokaw 2003-03-17 07:57:18 |
| #11 Amen to your comments Ptah. You might do well with your own blog. Just be sure to post the address here several times if you do. I wouldn't want to miss it. We all have had "friends" roll over on us at one time or another. It's pretty hard to tell someone they screwed up by trusting another who puts themselves over as a friend. I think the American public understands what happened and will in no way buy this lefty line of bull. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-03-17 07:54:23 |
| #10 Colin has done a damn fine job,the basis of diplomacy is compromise.If your opponents refuse to compromise then the blam/shame is own them. Said in 92/93 "Powel for Priesident". |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-17 05:51:11 |
| #9 Here's a (probably apocryphal) tale: A Financial Analyst with IBM made a miscalculation, shifted some company funds out of Britain at a critical time, and caused a minor fiscal crisis. It got papered over and the guy was called on the carpet in front of Watson and the IBM VP's. After outlining the problem, the bad choice, and what should have been done instead, the poor guy ended up asking "So, I guess you want my resignation?" Watson snorted, "No! We lost a few million on this debacle. You walk out, and that experience goes out the door with you." Yeah, apocryphal probably, but these kinds of rumors used to fly around at IBM, whose former reputation for being loyal to their employees created a legion of corporate fanatics. Do these kinds of rumors fly around at YOUR corporation? I say we keep Secretary Powell: this kind of experience is hard-earned and expensive, and of all the people that can be named Secretary of State who can be sure of not making the same mistake again, I'm sure Colin would head the list. I am coming slowly to the conclusion that, despite all the odds against it, all the forces arrayed against the possiblity of it happening, a genuine, 24 Karat, 100% born again Christian is sitting in the Oval Office. Blair supposedly is one too, and I'm wondering if both are deliberately going to the mat for each other out of Christian Brotherhood. This explains an earlier post where Bush, through Condolezza, sent a message to Blair telling him it would be okay with him, Bush, if Blair felt he had to get out of the kitchen because of the heat. If so, then the buck stops with Dubya, not Powell. Forget the relgious right stereotypes formulated by Idiotarians, and which are responsible for them always underestimating Bush. Standing with your Brother is a major meme in Real Christianity, and was the seed from which fraternities sprang forth. Blair, therefore, is definitely in a unique position to influence Bush, and is probably the major reason why he's working overtime to stay in the game. I thought the british were only sending 25,000 men: a respectable force. Now, I hear they're in to the tune of 40,000. Admittedly, this analysis is rather brief. Perhaps I should start my own blog where I could comment further. Should I? The major danger: Forgetting to be wise as serpents. Time to stop reading the Gospels for morning devotions, President and Prime Minister, and to start reading Proverbs. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-17 04:45:24 |
| #8 To my way of thinking on this, it seems to be viperishness. Colin Powell was the Left's fair-haired boy (if you will excuse the term); I can't tell you how many columns Mary McGrory wrote in the WaPo extravagantly praising Powell as long as it appeared that he was fighting the good fight for peace against the warmongers in the administration. When it became clear even to the stoneheads that he was actually executing the "good cop" segment of GWB's "good cop/bad cop" diplomatic strategy, and especially when the tenor of his statements and actions changed once it became clear that good cop/bad cop would no longer work with the Weasels, there was a stunned silence from the Left as far as Colin Powell went for a while. No longer , it seems. I think it more accurate to say that Powell is going to become the _Left's_ scapegoat. I doubt very much that GWB will ask him to resign, if he didn't already at anytime over the past fifteen months. |
| Posted by: Joe 2003-03-17 04:24:48 |
| #7 Eh -- you see this coming up now because the left (along with, I'd guess, bureaucrats at State) wants to spin this as primarily a failure of execution, not concept. Powell's error was pushing to do the UN thing in the first place, something these clowns would have us do still more of henceforth under the notion of "if only we'd gone door-to-door more last time!" or whatever. So best perhaps that a chastized Powell stay, if his departure is to be taken as a repudiation of his UN diplomacy instead of UN diplomacy in general. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-03-17 02:52:08 |
| #6 Bah. Colin won't go down over this. He might have to stand up and give a mea culpa: "I'm sorry. I did not realize the lengths to which Chiraq would go to protect his friend. I apologizing for believing that the French were allies. It won't happen again." He'd be forgiven. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-03-17 02:17:35 |
| #5 So far, a Big, Unsayable Thing in the US media about the current situation is that Mr. Powell is the guy responsible for the diplomatic end of things -- and we didn't do too well there. Mr. Powell has to bear the responsibility for that. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-03-17 02:14:59 |
| #4 And Colin's already in Newsweek, poor me! Well, the only thing I have to say about the froggies is I'm not surprised. They don't change. They still think there's no price to pay and they'll be in Iraq helping to rebuild. If 7 weeks of arguing the wording of 1441 wasn't a clue and they're being french, then I don't know what is. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-17 01:11:33 |
| #3 Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT" I picked up on that too.Screw-em,let our allies,espically central/east Euorpe,have first crack at the contracts. TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH: Just another status quo weennie,whats the matter afraid to stand-up and be counted,Anonon? |
| Posted by: raptor 3/18/2003 8:04:02 AM |
| #2 TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH: I just watched your ultimatum speech. Yes GW, it is "suicide" to let rogue elements control WMD. So why are you delivering WMD into the hands of Pakistan jihadis? You pressured elections in Pakistan, in context of the Islamist plague in that country. There can be no doubt about what these would-be killers of Americans will do. http://www/jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2003-daily/18-03-2003/main/main14.htm If you don't like the way that the semi-secular tyrant in Iraq feels about "evidence" disclosure, then why are you injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the Pakistan jihad state that quantifies human veracity, according to perverse religist dictate: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2003-daily/17-03-2003/oped/o5.htm The unholy-koran orders Muslims to refrain from taking "Jews and Christians" as friends. It is time you took that seriously. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/15_03_03_c.htm And your "faith based social initiatives" are fertilizing the gradual Islamization of America. This is what stage 2 will bring: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-3-2003_pg3_3 This is what the Saddamites think of your limited war plans: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/600/re6.htm I expect that one week after Iraq falls, you will begin its delivery to Saudi Arabia. |
| Posted by: Anonon 3/17/2003 8:01:43 PM |
| #1 The heat of the moment is probably not the best time to speculate on what went wrong. Did the 15-0 vote for Res 1441 lead the administration to a level of overconfidence? Did the administration push the demands for regime change appear slightly arrogant? Was 4 months of inspection sufficient to identify Iraq's intrangicence? Or was France just stringing along all the time. Clearly The US sees a clear and present danger in Iraq that most other countries in the world simply deny. And at the end of today, a lot of people have woken up to the oxymoron: UN action. |
| Posted by: john 3/17/2003 6:44:14 PM |