Editorial Retrospective On Colin Powell
Unsigned, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 16 Nov. 2004.
For four years, Secretary of State Colin Powell lent his hard-won credibility and stature to an administration that largely ignored his counsel in world affairs. He let himself be used as the public face for policies that in private he opposed and that, in some ways, directly contradicted much of what he claimed to believe in.
And tragically, in a historic speech before the United Nations that will be remembered as the most important moment of his public career, Powell laid out an argument for invasion of Iraq that time would reveal to be mostly false.
However, while others in that difficult situation might have quit, Powell chose to soldier on, resigning only now as President Bush prepares for a second term. Powell's reasons for staying this long are his own and will perhaps be explained more fully when he returns to private life. But it seems obvious that the concept of duty formed in a long military career played a role in his decision. The former Army general had signed up to serve four years, and he stubbornly did so; he had consented to follow Bush as his commander in chief even when he disagreed, and, out of respect for the office, he did so.
Powell also saw himself as serving both the president and the country by trying to act as a moderating force within an administration in which moderation was all too rare. For outsiders, it's difficult to gauge how effective he was in that role; in fact, historians will argue about that question for decades to come.
Part of their answer will undoubtedly depend on what happens in the next four years, with Powell retired and someone else filling the role of secretary of state for Bush. A handful of names have already surfaced as possible replacements, from the disastrous Paul Wolfowitz to the relatively moderate John C. Danforth.
None, however, will have Powell's independent stature, and that's cause for concern.
Every administration needs internal voices willing and able to raise questions about policy, and this one needs those voices more than most. Bush puts a great deal of emphasis on loyalty, which is understandable. It's dangerous, though, to confuse disagreement with disloyalty, and Bush and his staff already have proved themselves prone to that mistake.
For four years, Secretary of State Colin Powell lent his hard-won credibility and stature to an administration that largely ignored his counsel in world affairs. He let himself be used as the public face for policies that in private he opposed and that, in some ways, directly contradicted much of what he claimed to believe in.
And tragically, in a historic speech before the United Nations that will be remembered as the most important moment of his public career, Powell laid out an argument for invasion of Iraq that time would reveal to be mostly false.
However, while others in that difficult situation might have quit, Powell chose to soldier on, resigning only now as President Bush prepares for a second term. Powell's reasons for staying this long are his own and will perhaps be explained more fully when he returns to private life. But it seems obvious that the concept of duty formed in a long military career played a role in his decision. The former Army general had signed up to serve four years, and he stubbornly did so; he had consented to follow Bush as his commander in chief even when he disagreed, and, out of respect for the office, he did so.
Powell also saw himself as serving both the president and the country by trying to act as a moderating force within an administration in which moderation was all too rare. For outsiders, it's difficult to gauge how effective he was in that role; in fact, historians will argue about that question for decades to come.
Part of their answer will undoubtedly depend on what happens in the next four years, with Powell retired and someone else filling the role of secretary of state for Bush. A handful of names have already surfaced as possible replacements, from the disastrous Paul Wolfowitz to the relatively moderate John C. Danforth.
None, however, will have Powell's independent stature, and that's cause for concern.
Every administration needs internal voices willing and able to raise questions about policy, and this one needs those voices more than most. Bush puts a great deal of emphasis on loyalty, which is understandable. It's dangerous, though, to confuse disagreement with disloyalty, and Bush and his staff already have proved themselves prone to that mistake.