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
Nato-scaled
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)

The 17 Ukraine war peace terms the US must put before NATO

Europe

In the run up to the NATO Summit at The Hague next week, June 24-25, President Donald Trump and his administration should present a clear U.S. plan for peace in Ukraine to the European and Ukrainian governments — one that goes well beyond just a ceasefire.

While it is understandable that Trump would like to walk away from the Ukraine peace process, given President Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and now the new war in the Middle East, he and his team need to state clearly the parameters of a deal that they think will bring a lasting peace. Walking away from the effort to end the war prematurely leaves Washington in continued danger of being drawn into a new crisis as long as the U.S. continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and intelligence.

keep readingShow less
Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump
Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump at the White House in April 2025 (White House/Flickr)

Israel is luring the US into a trap

Middle East

Joining in Israel’s aggression against Iran would hurt, not advance, U.S. interests and international security.

This should not be surprising, given that support for U.S. interests and international security was not what led to Israel’s launching of the war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argues that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to America and not just Israel, but the nuclear issue was not the main motivation behind Israel’s attack, as reflected in a target list that goes far beyond anything associated with Iran’s nuclear program.

keep readingShow less
Michael Jensen
Top image credit: April 2014 - U.S. Air Force Maj. Michael Jensen, 26th Special Tactics Squadron commander smiles after assuming command of the squadron. The 26 STS, formerly Detachment 1 of the 720th Special Tactics Group, Hurlburt Field, Fla., is a newly activated squadron based at Cannon. (U.S. Air Force photo/ Senior Airman Eboni Reece)

Former Air Force commando takes top LatAm job at NSC

Latin America

After months of speculation, Reuters reported earlier this month that retired Air Force lieutenant colonel Michael Jensen has been appointed as senior director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council (NSC), according to two U.S. officials.

Jensen’s appointment marks the first time in recent memory that a president has nominated a special forces operative — let alone a career military officer — to oversee U.S. policy toward Latin America at the NSC.

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.