Follow us on social

Https___cdn.cnn_.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_181005195144-exp-gps-1007-powell-albright-sot-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-00003301

Remembering Powell's revealing exchange with Madeleine Albright

The 'reluctant warrior' said he thought he would 'have an aneurysm' after her full-throated plea for military action in Bosnia.

Analysis | Middle East

The death of former Secretary of State Colin Powell has raised the specter of his role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq — namely, his speech to the UN presenting purported (later revealed to be wrong) evidence of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, which proved as a pivotal moment in garnering public support for the war.

But Powell, who not only served as chief diplomat, national security adviser, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but also four star general of the Army and Vietnam veteran, has never been accused of being the most voraciously gung-ho soldier when it comes to war. In fact, he’s been known for the opposite, and for good reason.

Possibly the most notable moment and one that best encapsulates the “Powell Doctrine” is this extraordinarily tense exchange with Madeleine Albright, then Secretary of State, over whether the Clinton administration should authorize NATO airstrikes on Bosnia in 1993.

"My constant, unwelcome message at all the meetings on Bosnia was simply that we could not commit military forces until we had a clear political objective," Powell wrote in his memoir, “My American Journey.” Albright, he wrote, "asked me, 'What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?' I thought I would have an aneurysm." 

Powell also said Albright, who once said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions was "worth it," was treating American GIs as "toy soldiers to be moved around on some global chessboard."

But that is exactly how the Clinton administration later saw NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans, and how the subsequent Bush and Obama administrations treated U.S. forces in the Global War on Terror. 

Powell wasn’t perfect, his decisions and judgement not unassailable for sure. Many will pick apart his record — hawks will say he misjudged Saddam back in the Persian Gulf War, while restrainers will lament his seeming lack of courage to stand up to the Bush Administration over Iraq. But it is worth noting that he was seen, at least in some circles, as a reluctant warrior.

"As an old infantryman, he's willing to get into foxholes when there's a crisis, but he'll do it only in context of a grand strategy, a moral principle and, most of all, an exit strategy," Kenneth M. Duberstein, President Reagan's chief of staff and Powell's closest political adviser, told the Irish Times in 2000. "He picks his battles. And he does nothing halfway measures."

Also noted in the Irish Times article, a quote from the Athenian military historian and general Thucydides, which Powell supposedly kept under the desk glass in his Pentagon office: 

"Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses men most."


Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell (screenshot CNN Fareed Zakaria GPS)
Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.