Stardate 20020205.1723

(On Screen): I have seen many criticize Colin Powell for being too soft (for instance). Such people don't understand the process.

First, it is important that the advisors to the President present him with different points of view and different alternatives. If he is only presented with a single choice, then he isn't actually leading. Reports have said that in the aftermath of the attack in September, that there was one critical meeting of the NSC where Bush spend a couple of hours listening to his top advisors debating various alternatives, and asking them questions. Then he thanked them all, went away and spent a bunch of time thinking, and then returned the next day and told them all what the US was going to do.

He could only do that because his advisors disagreed with each other. And, to some extent, that is the point of cabinet government. Each cabinet minister (or department secretary) is supposed to represent a particular viewpoint. The Secretary of Commerce should be an advocate for business. The Secretary of Labor should be an advocate for workers. The Secretary of Defense should be an advocate for military buildup and for military operations.

And the Secretary of State should be an advocate for the use of diplomacy.

In this regard, they should not lie to the President, but it is also their responsibility to make the best case they can for their designated advocacy position. It's just like the trial process: the lawyers argue advocacy positions and the judge and jury listen to both sides and make a decision. If one side makes a more compelling case, it will prevail. And that is why it is praiseworthy for a lawyer to defend a thoroughly despicable bastard of a client in a criminal trial; if the process works, he'll lose. If he can prevail, it will be because the state loused up. So when he defends said despicable bastard, he is in a sense defending us all because he's keeping the state honest.

By the same token, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to try to represent a particular approach to solving international problems. If his position is a strong one and if diplomacy truly is the right answer, then his point of view will prevail in the discussion and he'll convince the President. If not, if the situation truly does call for the drastic step of going to war, then the Secretary of Defense will prevail.

But there's another strength to this. It means that the position of the US isn't seen as being monolithic. There are opinions voiced by members of the Senate and the House. There are opinions voiced in the press. There are opinions voiced by private individuals. There is give and take. People outside the US can see this happening, and can see how the process works and watch the ebb and flow, and can see what it is that they are doing which may be moving the consensus toward or away from positions seen as being good by the outsider. And the same thing happens within the administration. Because Powell is seen in the world as moderate, he becomes the one that outsiders seek out to speak to; which is indeed his job because he is our chief diplomat. And he can then tell them, "If you just do thus-and-so it will strengthen my hand for negotiations within the administration." This is one way of getting diplomatic concessions from people.

And when the designated moderate in the administration voices an extreme position, it adds particular emphasis to it. When the top diplomat of the US says that there is no point in the US negotiating with Arafat, then it makes it difficult to believe that there's anyone else to talk to about it, and makes the US position all the more strong.

The impact of that statement is much greater because it comes from Powell than if it had come from Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or Daschle.