Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Colin Powell dies of COVID, aged 84


vcczar

Recommended Posts

My own thoughts on him are:

- Great general in a strategical, tactical, and logistical sense. Of the post-WWII generals, only Tommy Franks, and possibly Norman Schwarzkopf, are of his eminence. Virtually all the Vietnam War generals were less than Powell. David Petraeus is often considered a great general, but considering it was during our failed Afghan War, a needlessly prolonged adventure, I fail to see where greatness was achieved. He might be good, but great requires results that should lead to success. I say should because others can grasp defeat from the jaws of victory that come after. 

- I think he ruined his legacy when he joined the Bush admin. He was crucial in pushing us into Iraq on flimsy evidence. I heard he didn't want to go into Iraq again, but just went with the administration when forced. If so, that's the opposition of a "Profile in Courage." Powell, despite his other merits, will receive some blame for the fallout of that war--destabilization, sectarian violence, power vacuums, ISIS, etc. 

- What I do find admirable is his behavior following his time as Sec of State. I think as a military man, he was used to taking orders, which might be why he acted as he did during the Bush admin. He was quick to endorse Obama in 2008 (who on campaign gave rhetoric very opposite of Bush on foreign policy), and never voted Republican again. He rightly opposed Trump very strongly and was awarded 3 EVs for his efforts in a protest vote. 

I do feel a bit of sadness because Colin Powell was a good NeverTrump voice to have to keep independents and some GOPers out of the Trump column. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

The greatest post-WW2 general of any nationality, hands down, was Võ Nguyên Giáp, and he is the only one who belongs among the 100 greatest military geniuses of history after WW2. Unfortunately for Powell, Petraeus, and others, including other Coalition commanders like Sir Mike Jackson, Rick Mercer, etc., the Taliban, ISIS, and the smaller insurgent militias in Afghanistan and Iraq were definitely emulating  Võ's tried and true tactic that allows an underdeveloped, poorly-armed, bad-logistics, underfunded, smaller nation to reliably defeat a high-tech, big-military budget World Power with great military posture beyond it's own shores if the war is on the small nation's home turf. This tactic is ESPECIALLY successful if the invading power has a Democratic, Constitutional Government and an independent media and is subject to war fatigue among the people and drop in popular morale, but has worked a couple of times otherwise (like the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979-1989). The only way this ever seems avoidable is if a brief, shock-and-awe campaign that focuses in laser-sharp precision on the mission goals, and doesn't get bogged down on the ground with occupation or, "nation-building," - a la, the Sex-Day War, the Falkland War, the Grenada and Panama Invasions, Desert Storm, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. The U.S., and other Coalition allies', commanders and political caciques, including Powell, seemed to believe this tactic would not be the case, and even when it became obviously so, refused to withdraw from an obviously lost, Vietnam War-like scenario, and stayed too long, with far too much death, destruction, chaos, and instability - and the breeding grounds of ISIS being created - on their heads. One has to question the quality of a general on the strategic level, if maybe not tactical or logistical here - unless he, and the other generals, were being constantly overridden and had their advice ignored, by political leadership secretly - like You-Know-Who, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, the Dark Lord himself (and I don't mean Voldemort) did with his very competent and skilled General Staff in WW2.

I’m talking about US generals, clearly, by the names I’m mentioning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I realize that. But, notice  Võ's mentioning in the first sentence led into a point about Powell and other U.S. Generals of his class. Or did you even get get past me namedropping  Võ, and not read the rest?

Nope. Don't have time. 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But, to expand my point, I would say H. Norman Schwarzkopf (who, now that I look it up, I see was also one of the top commanders and planners of the Grenada Invasion - coincidence, I think not!) was, hands down, THE greatest post-WW2 U.S. general, because he won two of the precious few outright militaries by the U.S. in the post-WW2 era, and he avoided (almost uniquely) falling into the pitfalls I listed in my post above that practically say a World Power has lost a war only a short ways in - traps which Powell was also very much unable to avoid, or even seemingly, by any empirical observation, tried.

Tommy Franks might be the best. He won the military phases (pre-occupation phase) of the 2nd Iraq War and the military phase (pre-occupation phase) of the Afghan War. Both were "won" rather swiftly. He retired soon after these victories, and that's when everything from a military standpoint started going downhill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patine said:

Donald Trump using the word RINO perjoratively? That's rich! By the definition of the term as used in political slander and invective, Donald Trump is the biggest and highest profile RINO out there!

He can’t be a RINO if he is now the party establishment. Anyone not on board with majority of the GOP is going to be a RINO. Parties change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

But is it really the SAME party, per se, just because it has the same symbol, electoral colour, election registry, party organization, and some degree of core member continuity? An interesting question, really. Is the Democratic Party of the United States the same party founded by Andrew Jackson? Is the Labour Party of the UK the same party founded by Keir Hardy? Is the Liberal Party of Canada the same party founded by George Brown? Hell, is the Chinese Communist Party the same party founded by Mao Zedong? I'm inclined to say that, in many long-standing parties, it's not just the same party that's, "changed," it's a different party that's upended and usurped the name, organization, and symbols. But I may differ with you on that viewpoint.

That's what I'm saying. The GOP has changed. It still the GOP, but it has changed. Trump can't be a RINO. Similarly, while Biden would be a DINO in 1828 in the Jackson Era, he can't be DINO now because Jacksonian don't lead the party. The party is still called the Democratic Party, but it has changed, or evolved rather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 6:42 PM, vcczar said:

That's what I'm saying. The GOP has changed. It still the GOP, but it has changed. Trump can't be a RINO. Similarly, while Biden would be a DINO in 1828 in the Jackson Era, he can't be DINO now because Jacksonian don't lead the party. The party is still called the Democratic Party, but it has changed, or evolved rather.

Right.  These "parties" have no core beliefs or unshakable tenets.  They're not interested in ideology, just power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pilight said:

Right.  These "parties" have no core beliefs or unshakable tenets.  They're not interested in ideology, just power.

Right, because the Democrats have changed ideology since *1828* they have no tenets or beliefs lol. Generally a party changes their beliefs along with their voters in time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

How much do a Blue Dog and Progressive Caucus member really have in common other than voting against Republicans? Really? Or a Neocon, a Libertarian, or a Trumpist, other than opposition to the Democrats? Really?

So you are claiming they have no similarities? None?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patine said:

How much do a Blue Dog and Progressive Caucus member really have in common other than voting against Republicans? Really? Or a Neocon, a Libertarian, or a Trumpist, other than opposition to the Democrats? Really?

I think they do have some differences.

For example, a Neocon would support the War in Iraq.  A Libertarian would not.

A Neocon would regard Edward Snowden as a traitor.  A Libertarian is more likely to be for Snowden.

Same with Assange.

I don't think the Neocons would be for cutting down the government to the level the Libertarians want it.

That said, you might be having a point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patine said:

How much do a Blue Dog and Progressive Caucus member really have in common other than voting against Republicans? Really? Or a Neocon, a Libertarian, or a Trumpist, other than opposition to the Democrats? Really?

Also, do you mean Libertarian or Libertarian Republican?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...