Powell Doctrine

Colin Powell just endorsed Barack Obama. I have always been a fan of Colin Powell, as I have considered him to serve the role of Secretary of State well. He spoke his mind; when he thought that Bush was messing up, he said so. The last thing that we, as a nation, need is a bunch of yes-men surrounding the President. What we need are people who will speak critically and openly, who will vouch for opposing ideas when to do so would be to ensure that the best policies are followed through with.

In the realm of foreign policy, I think that the so-called Powell Doctrine is a good piece of work. It asks the following questions in regards to whether or not we should engage in a military conflict abroad: Is our national security at risk? Can we achieve victory? Do we know the costs? Have we gone through every possible non-military means of achieving our goals? Do we have an exit strategy? Do we have support for this action domestically and abroad?
To me, the most important and most often overlooked aspect of the Powell Doctrine is the clause relating to non-military means of achieving our policy goals. It’s not enough to know that we can achieve victory, fully aware of the costs of that victory and with a planned means of leaving the conflict, with an action fully supported domestically and abroad, if that victory comes with unnecessary loss of life. Without question, as human beings we must act towards the greatest happiness of all mankind with a maximization of rights. I suppose that I’m a Utilitarian, then?

That’s the message of Lord of War: at the end of the day, we are alone with ourselves, and we must be able to live with ourselves, and how can we do that if we have caused unnecessary death? It is not the exit-strategy clause of the Powell Doctrine that we should focus on, people. That’s not the truth learned from Iraq.