The Argument For Powell
The more I ponder our current situation now that the election has finally passed, and we are transitioning into an Obama Administration, the more I realize how much we're going to have to do in order to fix the mistakes of the Bush years. Things are not as easy as simply making a flick of the pen making things all better. As much as we would like to say, "let's just shut down Gitmo", things are not that simple. ...Well, perhaps shutting down Gitmo itself. But then the lingering question becomes, "what do we do about the detainees?" There are numerous rational and reasonable answers to this question, none of which, I think, is either more right or wrong than another. But Gitmo is just one of many issues that Bush is laying on Obama's administration to clean up. Fair or not, that's the way it is.
Through my pondering concerning such questions, one name kept popping into my head: "Colin Powell". Wait a second. Why bring Powell on board? He's part of the reason we're in the foreign policy and national security mess we're in. True. Undeniably so. Yet Powell's unequivocal rejection of the Bush Administration and its policies and practices makes him, I believe, the perfect candidate to advise Barack over the next four years.
I'm not suggesting Powell for a top, high-profile position. I don't even believe he would take a job like Sec. of State (again) if he was offered. But as a senior adviser, he would be perfect. Having been a part of the Bush Administration during Bush's first term can, if utilized, be a positive in backtracking on such quagmires as Gitmo. Powell has a unique understanding of the way Bush's Administration operated, and thus, a unique understanding of what we could do in order to fix what's gone wrong.
But the best aspect is, to repeat, his unequivocal rejection of Bush's policies and practices, coupled with his full-throttled endorsement of Barack in October.
Giving Powell a role in his Administration, though, would also show Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. Understandably, there are many out there who would reject Powell's involvement as, "they're both black", or "Powell is a traitor to the Republican Party", or some other piece of rediculousness. But such criticism would come from the far-right. And let's be honest. Who's listening to the far right?
Through my pondering concerning such questions, one name kept popping into my head: "Colin Powell". Wait a second. Why bring Powell on board? He's part of the reason we're in the foreign policy and national security mess we're in. True. Undeniably so. Yet Powell's unequivocal rejection of the Bush Administration and its policies and practices makes him, I believe, the perfect candidate to advise Barack over the next four years.
I'm not suggesting Powell for a top, high-profile position. I don't even believe he would take a job like Sec. of State (again) if he was offered. But as a senior adviser, he would be perfect. Having been a part of the Bush Administration during Bush's first term can, if utilized, be a positive in backtracking on such quagmires as Gitmo. Powell has a unique understanding of the way Bush's Administration operated, and thus, a unique understanding of what we could do in order to fix what's gone wrong.
But the best aspect is, to repeat, his unequivocal rejection of Bush's policies and practices, coupled with his full-throttled endorsement of Barack in October.
Giving Powell a role in his Administration, though, would also show Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. Understandably, there are many out there who would reject Powell's involvement as, "they're both black", or "Powell is a traitor to the Republican Party", or some other piece of rediculousness. But such criticism would come from the far-right. And let's be honest. Who's listening to the far right?
Advertisement
In the interest of bipartisanship, why don't we give George W. Bush a position in the cabinet, and Dick Cheney too. They both have lots of experience and it would show that we are post-partisan.
November 17, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
I don't hate the Powell suggestion because Nathan makes one really good point -- Powell understands how GITMO was built and might have some insight into undoing it.
But, he doesn't need any official appointment or adviser post -- he should just tell Obama everything he knows. Then Obama can find a good smart Democrat who wouldn't have built Gitmo in the first place to tear it down.
It's not about partisanship, it's about competence. Our side has the competence.
November 17, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, he doesn't need any official appointment or adviser post -- he should just tell Obama everything he knows.
That I will agree with.
November 17, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our side?
Now is not the time for OUR side vs. THEIRS.
Now is the time for getting and keeping smart input in the new Administration.
If you want to look at it from the OUR SIDE vs. THEIRS, you're 10 years too late.
One of the things I like most about Barack Obama is that he's willing to listen to all sides and then form his opinions. The other thing I like is that he's not stupid enough to limit himself to one side of input.
It's time to move beyond parties, and into the future. No?
November 18, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This will be my rallying cry until we are focused on building the same progressive solutions irrespective of party affiliation. Time to change the script as well as the cast.
November 18, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How brilliant and rational your comment is! Why did I not think of such a thing myself.
November 17, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, my only objection to Powell is the fact that he was a member of the "Principals Committee", but he obviously rethought the horrors he was signing off on and in 2006 vigorously opposed Mr Cheney's attempt (through Mr Bush's office) to retroactively provide legal cover for the interrogations that had already taken place at Gitmo, Bagram, possibly Camp Bucca and other places.
November 17, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have my issues with Powell as well. He's not perfect. But I think that he has an understanding of things like Gitmo and Iraq that others don't have, because of his insider position in the Bush Administration.
Destor makes a good point that it wouldn't even need to be an "official" position. But I think Obama should tap Powell for his insight and rationale.
November 17, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powell's biggest problem is that he is no longer the Powell of the 90's, he's the Powell of the 00's.
Which is to say, Bush turned him into a gelding.
After the shame of his performance at the UN, it will be difficult to have taken seriously -- and we want whatever position we put him in to be taken seriously.
Destor (and you) come to the obvious conclusion: Adviser to the President. These positions need not even be formal. Kissinger has played this role for quite a while behind the scenes -- sometimes even for Clinton.
November 17, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you got it exactly right, CT. As usual. =)
November 17, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the advisor part, but think it's worth nothing that the majority of the country does not seem to hold that speech of his against him. His approval ratings are around 75-80%, he is well-known, and he is trusted. Paradoxically, his speech is one of the reasons we've all lost trust in government, but putting his face/name on the new administration might actually help restore trust for a lot of people.
Getting into the why of all that is a whole other story, but it is on forums like this one that I suspect the 20-25% of people who don't approve come from.
November 18, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two points, Hilary:
a) It's not the US approval that we should be concerned about. It's the world stage (e.g. that speech damaged us to the UN). And the SoS's job is dealing with world leaders. I don't have polled numbers, but Powell was specifically chosen to present the US's case because he was a popular, trusted world figure. He put that reputation on the line with the world --- and lost.
b) Some of us didn't trust the government before that speech. ;-)
November 18, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powell is an incredible mind, Obama definitely wants to utilize him when the time comes.
November 17, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powell is a useless, risk-averse sycophant. It's impossible to imagine a situation in which his (lack of) judgment would be of any use at all. The most overrated man in recent political history.
November 18, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But on the plus side he's not a big war criminal like the above-mentioned Henry Kissinger, a man who is routinely dragged from his vampire casket during non-daylight hours to offer advice to whoever is steering the imperial fleet.
November 18, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Kissinger always did it via request. Even for Bill Clinton.
The world is a messy place isn't it? The niceties of dogma are for the common folk (you and me) while the real machinations go on with realpolitik.
November 18, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
After Powell's endorsement of Obama, I doubt that the Republicans will see him as a bipartisan addition to Team O. As such he will not bring a whole lot of bipartisan comeraderie, 'hail fellow, well met' to the new administration.
November 18, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I addressed this in my post. Did you read it or skim it?
November 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it. I didn't think you addressed it at all, but rather glossed over it. Your statement, "Powell is a traitor to the Republican Party, or some other piece of rediculousness. But such criticism would come from the far-right. And let's be honest. Who's listening to the far right?", lacks something in analysis as the R party pretty much is the far right at this time. The logicians in the party are trying to swing it back to center, but the party is in general pretty much far right. The Arlen Specters are an exception in the R party.
November 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you haven't really offered any "analysis", either, so I fail to see how your contribution pushes the discussion forward.
That said, I'm not quite sure most of the Republican Party would even reject Powell so much. His approval ratings among Americans is extremely high. Among Republicans and Conservatives? It's through the roof.
The only people outwardly rejecting Powell advising Obama (officially or unofficially) would be the Sean Hannity's of the world. And as I said, "who's listening?"
November 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His approval ratings ... Among Republicans and Conservatives? It's through the roof." What's your source on that one? My original comment was a questioning of your statement, "Giving Powell a role in his Administration, though, would also show Obama's commitment to bipartisanship.". I'm not suggesting that the R's would "outwardly reject[ing] Powell advising Obama",as you say, I was suggesting that it will have less effect than a number of other Rs might have in showing BHOs commitment to bipartisanship.
I apologize if I offended you by questioning your 'analysis'. If by pushing the discussion forward you mean in the direction you want it to go, I'll shut up and go away. Didn't realize how deep into the echo chamber I'd strayed. BTW I thought 'rediculousness' was a typo, but as you haven't corrected it you should know that it is spelled 'ridiculous(ness)'.
November 18, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink