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
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

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.