Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By Stephen M. Walt
September 3, 2013
Remember the Powell doctrine? Elaborated by Colin Powell back in 1990, during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it consisted of a series of questions identifying the conditions that should be met before committing U.S. military forces to battle. The questions were:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
For Powell, each question had to be answered in the affirmative before a decision to use military force was made. If these conditions were met, however, Powell (and other military officers of his generation) believed that the United States should then use sufficient force to achieve decisive victory.
Like the closely related "Weinberger doctrine" (named for Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger), these guidelines were designed to ensure that the United States did not stumble into pointless wars whose costs far outweighed the benefits. Powell understood that civilians often had idealistic or quixotic ideas about improving the world with U.S. military power and that they were often too quick to employ it without thinking through the broader strategic implications. One might think of the Powell doctrine as a checklist designed to curb the well-intentioned but naive desire for global do-gooding that has inspired American liberal interventionists for decades.
(Excerpt)
Read more:
What Would Colin Do? The Case Against War with Syria. | Stephen M. Walt
Hmm..., I wonder if Messrs. Obama, Kerry and Obama's advisors used that check list to decide in striking Syria?
It seems to me t hat the last time all of the 8 points could have been answered in the affirmative was in WWII.
Just what is our objective, should we attack Syria?
and what is our exit strategy?
I heard John Kerry being quoted saying that we aren't going to have "boots on the ground" in Syria...... unless, of course, we decide to have boots on the ground.
Holy (bleep!). Is that what passes for leadership in Washington?
Hmm..., I wonder if Messrs. Obama, Kerry and Obama's advisors used that check list to decide in striking Syria?
While Kerry was facing the wrath of Congress, Obama was on the golf links laughing his head off and scoring his usual 110 strokes.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Yeah, because it worked so well in Iraq.
Apparently Mr. Obama's allies have read the eight questions and decided to sit out Obama's naïve incompetent attempt at foreign policy.
Apparently Mr. Obama's allies have read the eight questions and decided to sit out Obama's naïve incompetent attempt at foreign policy. Obama's made a mockery of America before the world. It's not just me that has come to that conclusion. Ask some of you're Democrats in D.C., they're jumping the USS Obama ship.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?