The Powell Endorsement and the End of the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is an important moment in the Presidential campaign.  Powell, a former National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State is one of the most trusted public figures in the United States.  And he is a Republican.  His endorsement acts as a seal of approval for moderate Republicans and independents from one of the most trusted figures in the country. 

But years from now when we look back at this moment there may be an even bigger story.  It is the story of the end of the Republican foreign policy establishment as we know it.  The final break between traditional pragmatic foreign policy conservatives and Neocons.  And it will likely be said that it was Colin Powell who struck the final blow that killed the alliance.

The pragmatists long dominated Republican foreign policy circles.  Their elder statesmen include notables such Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, James Baker, Bob Gates and of course Colin Powell.  They view the national interest through a relatively narrow lens, preferring to stay away from grandiose notions of American power and the romantic notions of spreading freedom and democracy around the world.  They don't completely forsake the idealistic notions of using American power as a force for good, but they do recognize that America's ability to spread democracy is limited

The Neoconservative wing of the Republican foreign policy community on the other hand,  which includes Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams is based on a version of messianic liberalism that believes that American empire and military might can be used to aggressively spread American values around the world. 

For years the two groups tolerated each other. The big break began in 2003 with the decision to go to war with Iraq.  A number of pragmatists began to speak out in opposition to the war, most notably Brent Scowcroft, who was not only George H.W. Bush's national security advisor but one of his best friends.  This evolution continued with James Baker's 2006 Iraq Study Group proposing a slow withdrawal from Iraq and direct engagement with Iran.

But with this election cycle, the break has finally come into the open.   John McCain's foreign policy ranging from the League of Democracies, to his refusal to talk directly to Iran, to his bellicose language reaction towards Russia has shown him to be a neoconservative hawk.  And now, two weeks before the election we have a remarkable situation where the majority of the old wise men of the Republican foreign policy community are either supporting Obama, not taking sides or supporting McCain out of loyalty or friendship while publicly contradicting him on foreign policy.

Consider this list:

• Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama.
• Richard Lugar, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has endorsed Obama's approach to diplomacy over that of McCain.
• Brent Scowcroft refuses to endorse either way.  Pretty telling for a former Republican national security advisor, especially since he was opposed to the war in Iraq.
• James Baker continues to support direct talks with Iran and has for the past two years. (Actually just read the entire five secretaries of state even transcript from CNN.  It's one big endorsement of Obama's foreign policy)
• Kissinger and Schultz are op-eds in the Washington Post and Financial Times calling for a more moderate approach towards Russia.
• Kissinger has also called for direct talks with Iran (At the Secretary of State level).
• Chuck Hagel has traveled to Iraq with Obama and while not publicly endorsing looks to be pretty clearly in favor of Obama.
• Secretary of Defense Bob Gates is giving speeches that sound a lot more like an Obama foreign policy than a McCain foreign policy.

The dirty little secret is that all of these pragmatic conservatives have more in common with Obama's world view and that of the progressive community as a whole than they do with McCain and Neoconservatism.  Right now most of them are sticking with McCain because of old friendships and loyalties, a desire to stay out of politics, or because they are social and economic conservatives. 

But don't be surprised if Powell's endorsement will encourage more of these pragmatic foreign policy conservatives to come over to the Democrats over the next few years.  At the very least I wouldn't be surprised if most of their proteges are soon working for Democrats.   If this scenario does in fact come to pass, then people will likely look back at the Powell endorsement as the moment the neoconservative/pragmatic conservative alliance came to an end, and the Republican foreign policy community fractured.

Comments

[Will-o]

I have been very impressed with Bob Gates he is a no bs type guy who knows what he is doing.
Obama would be wise to name Gates Sec of Defense after the election if Gates would agree to serve. Giving a plum job like that to a Rep would be a real game changer.

[tyler mcguillicudy]

everything has a price. that could be the most important lesson of the obama juggernaut. his campaign has understood that everyone has a price, and has worked diligently to find it, or, perhaps, it is the big money behind his campaign that has named the price, the tune, and the next four years.

[BillCarson]

Obama gets most of his money from small donors. When it comes to sellouts, John McCain's your man.

[magicwanz]

"But years from now when we look back at this moment..." we may notice that that history has swept both the left and right down the drain hole, leaving what? Who knows? Maybe we won't be there to look back. Maybe no one will.

[JohnTalbutt]

Just curious. Do you read Samuel Beckett?

[Trippin45]

"His endorsement acts as a seal of approval for moderate Republicans and independents from one of the most trusted figures in the country. "

"one of the most trusted figures in the country" - you can't be serious!

Colin Powell's WMD charade at the UN aided the neocon, Bush-Cheney war agenda.

Colin Powell's credibility in the diplomatic community completely evaporated after the "evidence" he presented to the UN was proved to be a hoax.

[JohnTalbutt]

While many of us were disappointed by his acitons at the UN, he stands out with the tiny handful of others in the Bush Administration who have admitted their mistakes.

The endorsement is powerful because he is the most respected living military leader..

Obama has already demonstated his ability to unify and work with a broad coalition for the good of the country and Powel very eloquently placed himself within that coalition

[Winningthepeace]

I have to agree with JohnTalbutt. It says much that Powell owned up to a mistake and feels regret for having made it. Few politicans own up to their mistakes. They blunder on never learning anything from their actions.

[Jackalheadedgod]

Let's hope so. It sure seems to be shaping up that way.

Cheers,
Jack

[redpepper]

Colin Powell was fired by GWBush and this is his way of getting revenge on the GOP. The Republicans are the ones who promoted this man and brought him to the forfront of politics. Then he stabs McCan in the back and supports Obama. Why! Guess?

[isisthecat]

Why? Maybe loyalty to COUNTRY trumps loyalty to PARTY. What a concept!

[BillCarson]

>and supports Obama. Why! Guess?

We don't have to guess. Colin Powell stated his reason for supporting Obama here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-oba_n_135895.html

[stryker]

Promoted him and brought him to the forefront? bush-cheney used Powell to get elected. After making hims Sec of State, bush all but ignored him in favor or cheney and rumsfeld. On 9/11, where was Powell? In S. America at a trade show ribbon cutting. They only brought him back because he was the only one our dwindling allies would talk to. Remember rumsfled's statement that Defense would dicate foreign policy, not the State Dept. Powell played the good soldier and went along to the UN. Maybe he believed that bush would try diplomacy first, but got fooled like most of the country. bush did not fire Powell. He resigned at the end of bush's first term as did other cabinet members. He was fed up with being cast aside by goofballs who knew nothing about diplomacy. Condi Rice was a poor substitute and only got the job because she was an old friend of W's.
Colin Powell is all class. I would have voted for him in 2000 had he run, but his wife knew what kind of attacks he'd face from his own party and talked him out of it.

[Will-o]

If you are implying that the man is a job seeker - we should only be so lucky. If you are suggesting that he needs money then apparantly you don't know what his speaking fee is and how many speaches he makes a year. He spoke at my firm's annual meeting and it cost us six figures. He is not hurting for coin.

[JustMyWords]

You need to get out more often. Perhaps you weren't aware that Powell had had some small degree of success in life long before Bush/Cheney came along. Something about the military, if I remember correctly.

Powell was already a fast-track rising star in the Republican party when he was tagged for the Sec State spot. What Bush/Cheney did was destroy his chances of a political career. They used his credibility with the world and set him up with phony information to make their case for war, and then threw him under the bus when they were done with him.

[redpepper]

Please read thoroughly everything about this controversial subject. Then make a comment or write a story. Russia wants to be the Soviet Union again as it was and it will do everything it can to provoke Georgia. Russia also knows that when McCain/Palin win the White House they have a major problem. They most certainly will not make too many waves with McCain. They know better.

[BillCarson]

The fear card. It's all the republicans have left. Hint: it's not going to work this time. 14 days to the end of a error. 91 days until the world is safe.

[nrborod]

91 days 'till the world is safe....sp­eculative. While I personally support Obama as the the person for the job, alot of s__t can certainly fall from the sky. Who knows? Things may (and usually do) come up that we couldn't forsee, could cause Obama to have to make shifts, changes that some of his most ardent supporters might find abhorrent. Be optimistic, and be pragmatic.

[franklin opt]

Please read everything about how the so-called neoconservatives hijacked this country's foreign policy and placed our economy, global standing and very lives in jeopardy. McCain is not Reagan and he is definitely not Kennedy or Eisenhower.

[Garvagh]

The neocons have been a catastrophe for the US and for the Republican party. Ironically, the neocons even have damaged Israel, though unintentionally, by foolishly encouraging the Israelis to try to keep much if not all of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Elliott Abrams (#2 on National Security Council) is a menace to US national security, and, again ironically, he is a threat to the long-term stability of Israel because he encourages militaristic approach to Syria and Iran (and to Hezbollah and Hamas).

[JohnTalbutt]

Well said! I do not believe the well being of Israel is the major concern for Elliot Abrams and most other neocons but rather that Israel is a pawn in their Imperialistic schemes which they may justify by claiming concern for Israel just as most imperialist have claimed high motives for their rapacious actions.

[exmate]

Military background was conspicuous by its absence among the Neoconservatives. It is amazing that they gained such influence over the US use of the military. Conversely, pragmatists: Powell. Scowcroft and Hagel did have military background. McCain's top foreign affairs advisor is Randall Scheunemann is another one of those Neocons who was instrumental in the run up to the Iraq war and has been very recently a lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia and is advising to have an aggressive stance with Russia. We have not done well with the Neocons for the past 8 years.

[franklin opt]

"We have not done well with the Neocons for the past 8 years."

The only people who do well with neocons are other neocons. Perhaps if the moderate and thinking Republicans at least follow Powell's rejection of the neoconserv­ative/PNAC school, this dangerous scourge will be history in our lifetimes.

[ddanaan]

I wonder who Gates will vote for in the secrecy of the voting booth? If anybody can claim to have saved America's foreign and military policy from a total debacle after Rumsfield and Cheney's path of destruction it would be Gates. I wouldn't expect a sitting Defence Secretary to endorse the opposing party candidate, but I haven't heard him speaking up for McCain either.
He's one of the younger (relatively) members of the Republican pragmatists. I hope Obama finds a job for him as well as Powell and I hope he takes it. It will take a long time to re-build the military and clean up the mess the Bushies made.

[tigs]

thought you were talking of bill gates ,now he really did save america , via the internet.

[castlerider]

One of the amazing things about the movie "W" is that you notice you're hear everything just as we heard it throughout these last few years, knowing exactly where and when these quotes were stated, and seeing that this movie is being rigorously factual, down to the T.
Yet, watching it all followed and played by these actors, you feel like what's happened these last 8 years has been a complete charade... An absolute committee of fools following this big lunkhead who proclaims himself to be called upon by God to change the world to his narrow-minded ideologies... In the outcome Colin Powell's discomfort is visible; not because the actor intends to show him as such, but moreso because his place in history simply does not blend in in any natural fashion.

But these last 7-8 years has been no movie. It's been all too real, and it's small wonder that General Powell would want to state what he has stated so soundly and deliberately, doing what he can to assure that his place in history holds on to what integrity he has left after being party to Bush and his ideological neocon goofballs.

[songoftherushes]

When really evil leaders are begrudginly giving up power, they usually burn the fields (or try to set the oil fields on fire).
Bush isn't gone yet.
OH....that's right......I forgot....nice economy......i keep forgetting what Obama is going to inherit....

[FirstShirt]

"i keep forgetting what Obama is going to inherit...."

Well, don't forget because the tax cut for 95% of americans won't happen. No way. And he knows it.

you will get the memo after the election.

[JohnTalbutt]

Well, att least enough reality has seeped in among the Obama detractors that they now realize he will win. It is a tiny step, but in the right direction.

[BillCarson]

>And now, one month before the election

One month! You nearly killed me with that one! It's 14 days dude! 14 days to the end of an error.

[Pupadup4oBama]

WHOA!! that is TOO crazy.
8 LLLLOOOOOO­OOOOOOOONN­NNNNNG years.

[doober]

Could all this switching be caused by a "Take care of #1" philosophy or "Leave the sinking ship" and get on the winning boat..

[JustMyWords]

Actually, the Republicans mentioned have always espoused philosophies far more in line with Obama's policies than McCain's. They are neither "taking care of #1" or "leaving a sinking ship." They're following their beliefs and principles rather than towing a party line.

COUNTRY before PARTY. Some people throw it around as a talking point. Some people actually do it.

[Truthosaurus]

I don't agree with the assessment of McCain's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. McCain and Biden have rightly supported NATO expansion of formerly occupied Soviet countries, and both came out with strong statements condemning this Russian aggression. Obama's thoughtfulness on many issues is appreciated, but his equivocating on this particular matter was concerning. I for one was happy to see Biden join the ticket - should be a good match. I know this doesn’t fit the simple storyline where McCain equal bad, Obama equal good. Hey no politician is perfect but Obama will hopefully make a great president.

[Ciganka]

George Kennan was greatly opposed to NATO expansion. He predicted that it would needlessly provoke Russia and push her towards exactly the kind of stance that we are seeing. While no US politician can come out seeming to back Russia, the US needs to take a look at our current Russian policy.
In fact, US diplomacy has been in crisis since the end of the Cold War. This is not unusual, but rather a very normal occurrence anytime in history when there has been a major realignment of power. This is another reason why we need a new generation of leadership. The situation in the world has indeed greatly changed and we need a fresh pair of eyes - Obama by a landslide!

[Truthosaurus]

NATO membership has been a lifeline to the former occupied countries in the region, and was the right thing to do both morally and strategically. With NATO and EU membership, the peoples of these countries are living in freedom, with democratic systems of government, where once they lived in oppressive occupation. They can do this directly on Putin's border without fear of invasion thanks to NATO membership. There is a reason all of these countries ran away from Russia towards the west, and George Kennan is wrong that we should have turned our back on them. To be sure, there is always risk when the US assumes treaty obligations. Russia complained and threatened when the former occupied Baltic countries were on the path to NATO membership. Fortunately people like Biden and McCain stood for the membership, and now these countries are protected and prospering. We could very well be seeing Putin's Russia back in these countries were it not for NATO membership. I commend Biden and McCain for their support of the former occupied countries, and in that regard Biden will hopefully be a good partner with Obama.

[BARRISTER]

Given the Defence Reciprocity, it is foolish, unwise and suicidal to admit those Nations into NATO until such time that all things are settled. To do otherwise faces America with the stark choice of going to War with Russia because some pettifogger who is Head of State in one of those Countries has a bone to pick, and picks it because NATO is with us, or withdrawing from the NATO Treaty rather than go to War.

[Truthosaurus]

Many former occupied countries have voluntarily joined NATO, and we are not at war with Russia over it. Did Russia complain and issue veiled threats during the process? Yes, that is what totalitarian regimes do. Russia understood the implications, as in no more invasions, and free people with democratic governments on it's borders. Letting these countries join NATO has been a positive for the people in these countries and for the US, by making clear and unambiguous the implications if the sovereignty is violated, which has led to stability and resulting economic and democratic prosperity. There is nothing foolish about it - the treaty partnership was the right thing to do.

[RnR]

I thought Georgia shot down 2 Russian planes? How does that make Russia the aggressor?

[philistine]

The shooting down of planes took place after Russia invaded. Incidentally, it was a lot more than two, which prompted Russia to take out Georgia's air defenses. Georgia put up a good fight, but was way overmatched. The President of Georgia started the shooting war, but a cold war of sorts had been raging ever since the Soviet breakup. Our neocons had their hands in this mess, too, by encouraging the western-educated Georgian president to join NATO and pull away from Russia. When Kosovo declared independence from Serbia and the U.S. immediately recognized them, Russia was affronted, and began to push back. So our wonderful neocons could be viewed as the instigators of the Georgian-Russian dustup. They've added a little extra humiliation to the mess that they've made of our country. A new circle of Hell will have to be opened to accommodate them all.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

From what I have read, the Georgia also "doesn't fit the simple storyline." While I'm very concerned about Russia under Putin (I live in Europe), it appears that the situation of provocations was rather complex and certainly not one-sided. Given that complexity and the seeming inability of many in the electorate to appreciate those intricacies, he is probably wise to concentrate on his campaign at this point more than on what I hope remains a low-priority issue until he's (I surely hope) elected and inaugurated and can do something about it.

[Truthosaurus]

Complexity should not be an excuse for lack of understanding or inability to act when necessary. Obviously Biden thought the situation significant enough so as to travel to Georgia, in solidarity with most of the other leaders of former occupied countries in the region. These people have an understanding of Russian aggression. Possibly Obama’s initial statement regarding the situation showed some inexperience. No candidate is perfect on all issues. Biden should be a good resource in this regard. I don’t think he will have the wool pulled over his eyes in terms of former KGB Putin, like Bush who saw the man’s “soul”. As a US and EU citizen with a farm in a former occupied country, I share your concern about Putin’s Russia, and am very grateful to the US for aid in obtaining NATO membership.

[Ciganka]

This is something of an expansion that supports the idea that we are not looking at a simple storyline:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,578273,00.html