During the Gulf War, then-President Bush sided with Powell, rejecting calls from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and others to continue on to Baghdad. Bush's background as a legislator and, like Powell, a diplomat made him sensitive to Powell's concerns about undermining the tenuous coalition that was assembled during the Gulf War.
But the current President Bush does not have the foreign policy experience of his father, and so the question of who has his ear on key foreign policy decisions has been the topic of much speculation. During the presidential campaign, Bush tried to temper concerns about his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge by pointing to the seasoned foreign policy hands surrounding him. But those advisors have real ideological divides over a number of issues, and so far Bush has not sided clearly with one side or the other. On some issues -- taking a measured approach to Iraq and keeping U.S. troops in the Balkans -- he has taken Powell's side, But the president backed administration hard-liners on North Korea, refusing to try to negotiate an end to that country's missile program.
Jon Basil Utley, a fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, argues that many military strategists in the Bush administration live in a sheltered, theoretical world that is often woefully out of touch with reality. "Most spent their working lives as Washington policy wonks," he wrote in a recent article. "Almost none have business backgrounds. Most know little more of the world than having been with official delegations or perhaps having done some study in England when they were young. They are the brains of the 'War Party' supported by the big conservative foundations, military/industrial industries and other Washington interests which benefit from wars.
"Bush, by nature, seems far less likely to launch foreign wars," writes Utley. "He also has valuable 'real world' foreign policy experience from dealing with Mexico as Texas' governor."
Powell has been instrumental in quelling fears among European allies worried that the new Bush administration would have little regard for multilateral cooperation or support. The so-called Powell Doctrine -- that military force should be used as a last resort, with the full support of the public and with a well-planned exit strategy -- also came as "a breath of fresh air after [Madeleine] Albright's triumphalist ravings about the 'Indispensable Nation,' writes Srjda Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles magazine.
But just how much sway Powell holds inside the Oval Office is unclear. Ultimately, as with most other policy initiatives in the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney's role will be key. When word of the Wolfowitz/Powell split hit the press this week, Cheney's role remained unclear. An article in USA Today put him on the side of the Iraq hawks, while a New York Times article indicated he may be closer to Powell.
"I don't know where Cheney is at the moment on Iraq," says Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "What he brings is his oil industry, anti-sanction perspective. Cheney led the fight to end sanctions against Iran. At the beginning of this administration, there was a lot of thinking that he might take over the same kind of anti-sanction stance vis-a-vis Iraq.
"Companies like Haliburton [where Cheney served as CEO before joining the Republican ticket] are linked more broadly to the whole of rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure. The oil companies are going to clean up when the sanctions are lifted."
Thus far, the Bush administration has not shown its hand, but it has been relatively cautious. Meanwhie the battle for Bush's ear continues between Powell and Wolfowitz. With America poised to begin the most ill-defined, and perhaps the riskiest, military campaign in its history, far more will hang on the Powell-Wolfowitz debate than a clash of ideas.
About the writer
Anthony York is an associate editor for Salon News.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)