As a young Army lieutenant, and later a major, he served two tours of combat duty in Vietnam, where he would know the personal pain of holding in his arms a young, dying soldier and where he pledged, if he ever were to make policy, that he "would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand."
Thus was Colin Powell, later chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, moved to author the Powell Doctrine, which makes even more sense today than it did a generation ago. The Powell Doctrine holds that the United States shall commit its men and women into combat only as a last resort and only after all economic, diplomatic and non-military alternatives have been tried, and then only when the following four conditions have been met:
— The vital national security of the United States is threatened by the enemy to be attacked.
— The United States is prepared to employ overwhelming force disproportionate to the force available to the enemy.
— The mission and its objectives are fully understood and supported by the American people, and that mission has broad international support.
— There is a clear and plausible exit strategy for the Americans committed to accomplish that mission.
Tragically, in persuasively making the public case as President George W. Bush's secretary of state for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, Powell disregarded and disobeyed his own doctrine. There was no grave threat to U.S. national security. The U.S. refused to use overwhelming force. There was no informed public commitment to, or understanding of, the mission, precious little international support and, clearly, no exit strategy.
Now the nation approaches the eighth anniversary of military combat in Afghanistan, where more Americans died this August than in any of that war's previous 93 months.
The country's leadership continues to ask everything of the brave Americans who serve and who suffer — and of their loved ones who both miss them and mourn them — while asking no inconvenience whatsoever of the other 99 percent of us. Let us understand: This nation does not commit "force" to war. No, we send men and women, all with families and hopes and plans for their futures.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been, and remain for our proudly classless nation, "a class war." The once-honored national value of shared sacrifice has been abandoned in the 21st century. The children of the country's economic and social elites — both the politically conservative and politically liberal — have been overwhelmingly AWOL from harm's way.
Conservative author Michael Barone has written that "war demands equality of sacrifice." There is truly no moral authority like that of sacrifice. But not for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation's first major conflicts since the Mexican-American war in 1846 to be waged without a military draft and without civilian tax increases.
In 2009, has the Powell Doctrine been repealed? Is there in its place an "Obama-Clinton Doctrine" that defines when, under what conditions and why the United States goes to war? If there is, I confess I have missed it.
What is the U.S. mission in Afghanistan that the American people can support and for which we are asking some American children to grow up without a father? When will we know that mission has been accomplished? What sacrifices will each of us be asked to make? This needed national debate is long overdue. For the record, you can put me down for fully restoring the Powell Doctrine.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
COPYRIGHT 2009 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Interesting that it's not a matter of just skimping, perhaps, on one of those four points.
Not one of them has been even remotely met. And while this war at least was not the product of a complete falsification of reasons to enter into it, it is pretty shameful that once again we have a bunch of elite bookworms (well, okay, maybe the Bush Admin folks were just worms) making the decision from their comfy little gardens of paradise for other people to offer up their lives.
There is only so much wisdom you can get from passing law school exams with an "A" and then teaching other well-scrubbed students to do the same thing.
It's more than frightening to think about how much power the law school classroom holds over our entire way of life, from the robed pronouncements of our august courtrooms, to the orchestrated media charades playing daily in the hallowed halls of our legislature, to the revolving door of appointments whirring around in our well-financed executive branch, and of course, all the way out to those obscure lands halfway across the globe where our nation delivers ruination of lives and ways of life to just about everybody but the deserving, and where nary a law school graduate is to be found.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Sat Sep 5, 2009 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir; ... Shared sacrifice is not just moral authority, if I have you right, but is the price all people pay to belong... Christians were put out of society because they would not sacrifice to the Genius of the Emperor, even if this meant just a pinch of incense in a bowl... What one man gives his life for, another will not give treasure for...Is the cause just??? We have many who will not pay taxes... By what authority is their wealth held??? If the society does not defend the geography of this place, or the rights they claim, then how can they defend their rights, or themselves, for that matter???The people are the law, and the people are the morality, and regardless of the form -whether it be marriage or society, all people sacrifice for their relationships... No one should believe they own their wealth free and clear, but understand that while one sacrifices life they must sacrifice taxes... If the wealth of the commonwealth were all in private hands it must still support the population, and it would be better if such a population were not encouraged to predation, but if so, then before any should die -the people should be commited to the act, and see the benefit of it...Democracies are not designed for offense... Democracy is a defensive form of social organization... We should not do what we cannot do well, but those who would do us harm, or injure others in our names should finance themselves and their own crimes... In European history it was the war chiefs who lived on their plunder who became the kings who lived off every body's sweat and toil... Their sacrifice for the spoils they enjoyed were non existent... When their society crumbled to put up more dead wood for us to bend over for, their societies did not miss them one little bit, because they, the lords and kings took everything, and contributed nothing... That is our rich class in a nutshell... They want all, and sacrifice nothing... They demand sacrifice, and offer nothing... They start the wars the poor fight for gains the rich alone realize... These people deserve none of our protection, but need to be turned out of society like the criminals they are...If we realized that we cannot have more security by the destruction of every other person's security we would be miles ahead...If we would demand of all -the same level of sacrifice; from the poor their lives, and from the rich their wealth, then we would be a just society... The more the rich can keep their wealth unencumbered by the demands of just taxation -the more poor and desparate we will become, and so, more war like, and irresponsible in our international conduct...What we have we should defend, and defend also from the predation of the rich who use the taxes they avoid to empoverish us all while they enrich themselves... Now, the poor must pay for the very wars they alone fight with wages they will never enjoy... If the rich paid, as they did once when this country was new, then they would be more careful in their choice of conflicts...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
