Secretary Powell and the "Pottery Barn" Rule

According to reports of what's in Bob Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack," Secretary of State Colin Powell was a reluctant team player in the invasion of Iraq:

Two months before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned President Bush about the potential negative consequences of a war, citing what Mr. Powell privately called the "you break it, you own it" rule of military action, according to a new book.

"You're sure?" Mr. Powell is quoted as asking Mr. Bush in the Oval Office on Jan. 13, 2003, as the president told him he had made the decision to go forward. "You understand the consequences," he is said to have stated in a half-question. "You know you're going to be owning this place?"

I watched with disbelief as Powell, the member of Bush's administration I've always held in the highest regard, made the case for invading Iraq before the United Nations. Not that I knew he was doing so against his best judgement, per se, but from a source very close to Powell, I've known for some time he had no intention of serving in a second Bush administration (despite his insisting otherwise publically).

So I wondered, why would this man not just quit back then. Was his sense of loyalty or responsibility such that he felt, since he had signed up for the job and Bush was his boss, he owed it to the nation to complete his term as dutifully as possible.

In Mr. Woodward's account of the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell in January 2003, the president is described as having simply informed the secretary of state of his decision to go to war in Iraq, as part of a 12-minute meeting in which Mr. Bush made a conscious decision not to ask Mr. Powell for advice.

But, according to the book, Mr. Bush did ask Mr. Powell "Are you with me on this?" and told him, "I want you with me." Mr. Powell is quoted as having replied: "I'll do the best I can. Yes sir, I will support you. I'm with you, Mr. President."

Or was it more a sense that, as we hear about Blair, he felt he could help steer this runaway train better if on the train than from somewhere next to the tracks? I've always hoped that was it, wanting to continue to admire him. And Powell might as well play to my side of the fence now anyway:

Conservatives have long accused Mr. Powell of pursuing his own agenda, and of being more interested in depicting himself as right on the issues than as loyal to his president.

One thing is certain. There's no way Bush can try to claim he was poorly advised on what he was getting us into:

Over a period that began in early 2002, Mr. Powell is depicted as having cautioned Mr. Bush and other advisers repeatedly about the potential drawbacks of military action in Iraq. The "you break it, you own it" principle he cited in delivering those warnings was privately known to Mr. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, as "the Pottery Barn rule," the book says.

"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people," Mr. Powell is said to have told Mr. Bush in the summer of 2002. "You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all."

Comments

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Powell made similar observations about the First Gulf War, something about it not meeting all of the parameters of the Powell Doctrine.

[wilfred]

It's a shame Colin Powell couldn't add that we would also be killing tens of thousands of civilian women and children and men to depose a man that UN Sanctions and no fly zones had already brought to his knees. But then again, maybe Powell did, it's not like they're going to share that with us. The neocons only release info that hurts their enemies (i.e. anyone who doesn't want him re-elected, that echo you're hearing is from the Nixon Administration). And they ran for the ticket on bringing 'truth' back to the White House. Give me a stained dress any day over World hatred of the US and the countless lives lost of innocents as well as soldiers. I would have Bush resign before he is impeached but the mere thought of a President Cheney ever in our history books makes me wish otherwise.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

tens of thousands of civilian women and children and men must be confusing this conflict with a guy named Saddam.

[Harley]

Cool, Tim, you're starting to channel the president.

[wilfred]

Nope Timmy, the villian in those deaths is US. Now that we both have blood on our hands it's hard to point the finger at the bad guy, as no one is wearing the white hat anymore. Saddam was awful but so now are we, and we should have known better. The majority of the rest of the world figured it out, why can't 50% of this country?

[wilfred]

don't know how to link on this blog but this is a sad bit of news. Funny this fiction about us having a left leaning media, where we only now have Fox and Fox-lite on our major outlets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1193948,00.html

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred, you post a link using standard HTML on this blog:

{a href="URL"}text{/a}

where the {} are replaced by greater-than and less-than signs, aka "pointy brackets".

[Jesurgislac]

I would have Bush resign before he is impeached but the mere thought of a President Cheney ever in our history books makes me wish otherwise.

Perhaps Bush and Cheney could be impeached together: after all, Bush probably couldn't testify without Cheney along.

[wilfred]

thanks for the link info. Ok, if you insist, we can impeach them together.

[Anarch]

Continuing in the macabre vein, does anyone know the latest estimates for civilian casualties in Iraq over the past year?

[Jesurgislac]

The Iraq Body Count website says it's between 8875 and 10725. Their database, though, ends on 28 March, and references no deaths in Falluja, yet.

[dutchmarbel]

In answer to the humanitarion justification of this war I want to point to this part of the Human Right Watch organizations World Report 2004. It states a.o.: "In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind."

[Edward]

not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind

In a nutshell that is the issue.

[Moe Lane]

"Wilfred, you post a link using standard HTML on this blog:"

BTW, if there's a TypePad user who has figured out how to put "How to HTMLize text" instructions just below the "Post a comment" text above, I'd love to hear about it.

[bob mcmanus]

"BTW, if there's a TypePad user who has figured out how to put "How to HTMLize text" instructions just below the "Post a comment" text above, I'd love to hear about it."

Well, Billmon at Whiskey Bar has a good set of instructions, if you are talking to him. Don't have a clue as to what he uses though

[Gary Farber]

"...but from a source very close to Powell, I've known for some time he had no intention of serving in a second Bush administration (despite his insisting otherwise publically)."

I relied on all the newspapers and newsmagazines that reported this more than a year ago, myself.

[Frankie]

Well that explains what this was about:

http://www.murmurs.com/talk/showthread.php?s=35e7959a6d5ce3a2a83c3536c703f0e4&t=67356&page=4&pp=15