THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
Does Colin Powell believe in the Powell Doctrine?
Thursday August 21, 2008
By Ellis Washington
As we approach the time of the Democrat National Convention in Denver, Colo., next week, there is increasing political noise about whether or not Gen. Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, national security adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will cast his support for Barack Obama. Perhaps he might even be given a coveted speaking opportunity at the convention?
For Gen. Powell to even consider supporting Obama, a politician who ran to the left of Hillary Rodham Clinton on one issue alone – "I didn't vote for the Iraq war" – is troubling for the good general on a number of levels.
For Colin Powell to support Obama, he would have to renounce totally every aspect of "the Powell Doctrine," a prudent list of questions the general developed that all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States, including:
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Do we have genuine broad international support?
Barack Obama, as a liberal Democrat with neo-Marxist tendencies, wouldn't in any way feel obligated to adhere to any of these points in the Powell Doctrine as part of his foreign policy or his war policy, for in most cases, current Democrat talking points on whether or not America should go to war is dependent primarily on the last point of the Powell Doctrine: Do we have genuine broad international support?
I cite this point because the rhetoric of Obama and the Democrats is obsessively concerned with how America is viewed by the world – a dangerous way to conduct one's foreign (or domestic) policy indeed.
It seems counterintuitive to me – how can Powell, a respected moderate Republican, support the neo-Marxist Barack Obama? It all boils down to the color of his skin rather than the content of his character, and secondly, Powell was never a real "conservative" intrinsically because he was never comfortable being loyal to the core tenants of conservatism, though he made his career primarily under Republican presidents like Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
I am convinced that Powell is willing to back Obama simply because he is black, that Powell longingly sees his own aborted political aspirations in Obama and also that Powell over the past 20 years has taken increasing pleasure at sticking it to the conservatives – whom I believed he quietly despised for all of those years but now feels no hesitation to openly disrespect at every opportunity since leaving public office.
Powell's likely support of Obama is racialist politics at its worst. It is a vulgar form of identity politics where one is willing to throw all of one's core moral, ethical and political principles to the wind for the sake of racial unity (here, race transcends morality, virtue, truth, common sense and patriotism).
Gen. Powell was one of the few visible black conservatives in the Cabinet of Republican administrations. He also had been rumored in the past as a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate.
However, Powell felt he was used by George W. Bush, placing a "blot" on his record by being compelled to present false or misleading information to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, regarding evidence that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. His presentation led to a resolution endorsing military action against Iraq where we've been fighting a war for over five years – longer than our involvement in World Wars I and II.
The general consensus by the propaganda press and the international community was that Powell lied to the U.N. Security Council at the behest of President Bush, thus there is a lot of bitterness harbored by Powell against the Republican Party.
How could Powell in good faith support Obama for president of the U.S.? Think of the core values of modern conservatism: small, less intrusive government, government based on the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought, freedom, liberty, lower taxes, freedom of the individual to go as far as his talent can take him. In the words of Dr. Walter Williams: "More government equals less freedom"; therefore less government equals more freedom. Who could rationally be against that?
Now compare those core values of conservatism with modern liberalism as practiced by today's Democrats: large, ever more intrusive leviathan government, government that methodically seeks to turn back the clock on America's unique Christian heritage in society and culture, enslaving black people (and others) in the Faustian bargain of amorality, comprehensive welfare, higher taxes to support an ever-bloated government that is bankrupting the country.
Obama's political philosophy evidences a depressing, cynical worldview where you have no individual identity, you don't belong to God, but are owned by the State. Under Obama's brand of progressivism, liberalism and socialism, the State is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and will take care of you from cradle to grave.
What could Gen. Powell, or any other conservative for that matter, see in any policy issues of Obama that he is in agreement with, unless he has first disparaged his own values and belief system and cast them to the wind? Only then is it understandable why Gen. Powell would cast his lot against a fellow, decorated Vietnam vet like John McCain and cross party lines to vote for a man like Barack Obama.
Has Powell forsaken his own Powell Doctrine? If he gives his support to Barack Obama, I truly believe that he has.
Furthermore, just to consider supporting a man like Obama for president with all we know about his radical ideas borders on treason.
Ellis Washington, former editor at The Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality:
The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002), "Beyond the Veil:
Essays in the Dialectical Style of Socrates" and He has just completed the manuscript to his latest book, "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust" (2007).
Washington's latest book, "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust," can be pre-ordered by calling 800-462-6420, promotion code "UPREPUB."
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
