COLIN POWELL: AN AMERICAN HISTORIC ANOMALY

This week’s death of former State Secretary and retired four-star general Colin Powell marks a reflection time for America. Powell died October 18 from complications of COVID-19.  Cancer exacerbated his condition.  He was 84. We regard Powell as a complex figure on the American political scene, but let no one doubt his historical significance to the nation. 

Powell was the New York-born child of Jamaican

immigrants. He rose to the top of the U.S.  military. He served in significant political and diplomatic positions.  We suspect history will regard him as one of the most accomplished and important Americans of his time.

         

A Fistful of Firsts

Some will remember Powell as a black man who checked off a long list of firsts:

· First black National Security Advisor to a President of the United States. Ronald Reagan named Powell, then a three-star general, his national security advisor on November 5, 1987.  The famously conservative Reagan wasn’t known for appointing people of African descent to high office, but Powell became a trusted advisor.

·  First black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Powell ascended to that job as the nation’s top military officer after being nominated by President George H.W. Bush (41) and confirmed by the Congress. Powell was one of the architects of the quick American victory in Operation Desert Storm, the televised war that demonstrated the technological superiority of the U.S. military.

· First black Secretary of State.  President George W. Bush (43) made Powell thecountry’s top diplomat. He served with distinction, except for one major blemish, his support for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. He was allegedly  duped by others in the Bush administration into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Powell subsequently took responsibility for his action. It’s commonly believed he accepted the story Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and others peddled because Colin Powell was, first and foremost, a soldier who followed orders and carried out the plans of his superiors.   

                       

A Man of Courage

Powell served in combat. In his memoir, My

American Journey, he wrote extensively of coming under fire and being injured while on duty in Vietnam. His experience there encouraged him to formulate the so-called Powell Doctrine – the idea that the United States should get involved in foreign wars only after reaching a political consensus about its objectives and amassing whatever force it needed to achieve those objectives. Arguably, that’s what the U.S. did in Desert Storm. Maybe it’s what we didn’t do in Afghanistan.

Whatever battlefield courage Powell demonstrated in Vietnam, he sometimes eclipsed it in the political arena. Take for example his speech at the 2000 Republican convention when he defended affirmative action in college admissions before an audience notoriously hostile to that idea. Supporting affirmative action before progressive Democrats and civil rights activists is one thing. Doing so before a hall full of Republicans is another.

Then there were his presidential endorsements in 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Despite being a Republican and serving in a Republican administration, Powell endorsed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden in those elections. He got plenty of blowback for those endorsements, but he stood by them. He said he believed the candidates he backed would better serve the national interest.

Seeping into the Culture

Colin Powell wasn’t just a military, political, and diplomatic figure. He came to stand for the respected man the country and its political class

could trust. He even became a model in the literary world.  The Race is a political novel by acclaimed writer Richard North Patterson. Mostly, the story concerns a fictional Desert Storm hero turned United States Senator who seeks the Republican presidential nomination while carrying on a very public romance with a black actress lugging around potentially devastating personal baggage and an activist history at odds with the GOP agenda. Even in the world of fiction, the Republican Party wouldn’t nominate such a candidate. His campaign works well enough, however, that he succeeds in helping deny the nomination to the compromised candidate favored by most party insiders.  Divided and dispirited, the GOP turns to a black military hero/general bearing an uncanny resemblance to Colin Powell.

That Patterson used Powell as the model for his savior candidate spoke volumes about the stature the real life Powell attained.  Americans from most segments of the political spectrum looked up to and respected him. He wasn’t perfect, as his championing of the Iraq misadventure demonstrated, but most indicators are that he was a patriot. 

TRUMP AS FORMER PRESIDENT: A DISCORDANT OUTLIER

Over the 245 years of the American republic, the people of the United States have come to expect certain behavior from former presidents. As with every other aspect of his association with the presidency, Donald Trump now flaunts those expectations. His conduct looks especially egregious when compared with his real peers, other one-term presidents. No matter how long his predecessors served, however, Trump looks like an aberration. 

During our lifetimes, the United States has had three one-term presidents, chief executives who got elected, served one four-year term, stood for re-election, and lost. This definition, therefore, does

not include John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford. Kennedy won one-term and was assassinated. Johnson finished Kennedy’s term, won one of his own, but didn’t seek re-election. Ford succeeded Richard Nixon after his resignation, but lost the 1976 election. 

The presidents who fit our definition come from both parties – Democrat Jimmy Carter (1977-81) and Republicans George H. W. Bush (1989-93) and Trump (2017-21). The similarity in conduct between Carter and Bush, as one-term former presidents, when juxtaposed with that of Trump, provides more evidence of 45’s decadence.

The Former President Model

Our constitution says nothing about the “role” of a

former president. We established the  conventions and traditions by example. The nation’s first president, George Washington, served two terms and didn’t run again mainly because he worried about doing anything that resembled a monarchy.

 

The colonists fought a bitter war for independence from a tyrannical king. Washington wanted nothing that suggested the new country was installing something similar. 

The two-term maximum continued as an informal limit on presidential tenure until Franklin Roosevelt won four terms, prompting the 22nd amendment that made the two-term limit law.  The country has

had 13 two-term presidents, along with some who got reelected but couldn’t finish their terms for reasons like assassination or scandal (Abraham Lincoln, Nixon). We’ve had eight one-term presidents under our definition.  There’s also the strange case of Grover Cleveland who was elected in 1884, lost in 1888, then regained the office in 1892 and served out that four-year term.

By and large former presidents, whether they served one term or two, have assumed a senior statesman role. Generally, they’ve left themselves out of the country’s day-to-day political machinations.

 

James Earl Carter, Jr. and George H.W. Bush

Jimmy Carter and the first Bush weren’t much alike as presidents. In truth, they weren’t all that alike as former presidents except in ways that speak volumes about how they conceive of the

presidency. Carter devoted himself to good  works – helping Habitat for Humanity, promoting election reform in the third world, fighting poverty, etc.  The first President Bush spent more time doing things people do when they’re retired, though he took on humanitarian relief projects at the behest of his son, President George W. Bush. These included joining in 2005 with the man who defeated him, Bill Clinton, in raising money for tsunami victims.   

If Carter and Bush did some things differently in their post-presidential lives, they also did some important things alike. Neither injected himself into politics much beyond benign activities like speaking at his party’s convention and receiving the party’s nominee during the fall campaign. Both honored the office they held by quietly counseling their successors when asked and behaving as if their election hadn’t anointed them with a divine right to influence and manage the political process though they no longer occupied the oval office.

Trump’s Mischief

Since landing at Mara Largo on January 20 this year, Trump has remained a loud political  presence. Though social  media companies banned

him for distorted, untrue statements on their platforms, at rallies, through press releases, and in interviews on friendly outlets like Fox News, Trump infects our politics on a daily basis. He retains the loyalty of millions. He keeps raising money for future campaigns and, no doubt, his own use, including his mounting legal bills. He blesses favored candidates and meddles in Republican politics nationwide.

In some states, winning a Republican primary requires Trump’s endorsement. Even established GOP leaders will bow to his wishes because they so fear being out of favor with his voters. Recently, he pressured Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Trump sycophant now faced with dropping poll numbers in his state, into ordering an “audit” of Democratic-leaning counties, even though Trump carried Texas in 2020 by 630,000 votes. No one could imagine Carter or H.W. Bush doing such a thing.

Trump, of course, keeps hinting he’ll run again in 2024. Some people who know him think he can’t resist, while others believe he won’t because he can’t stand the prospect of another defeat. He did, however, recently hold a rally in Iowa, a key early state on the 2024 primary calendar.

We know Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, both two-term presidents who can’t run again

themselves, have campaigned for Democratic nominees who wanted to follow them into the oval office. Obama, particularly, helps Democrats raise money,

partly through direct mail solicitation of small donors.  But neither has muddied the water like Trump (nor has Trump’s fellow Republican, two-termer  George W. Bush). Neither has thumbed his nose at the expectation former presidents will maintain a sense of decorum and behave as protectors of the instruments and traditions of democracy.

The American presidency was never intended as a repository for unfettered political ambition or as a mere vessel for accumulating power its holder could dispense in service of those ambitions. By tradition and experience, the nation established norms for former holders of the job that honor the limits we put on the office itself. Trump has disregarded those, just as he flaunted so many norms while he was president.  The country should call out his behavior.  We just did our part.     

    

THE U.S. GETS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN: FIRST, HOW DID WE GET IN?

 

The United States is out of Afghanistan. On August 30 the last transport plane carrying American military personnel and equipment, U.S. citizens, and Afghan allies lifted off from  Kabul

International Airport. After twenty years and at a cost of  2500 U.S. military lives, 1200 soldiers from allied countries, 3900 contractors, 111,000 Afghans (31,000 of them civilians), and $2 trillion, the United States is done.

The Biden administration took a lot of heat for the
exit. Future investigations will determine if could have been done better. Polls showed Americans in favor of leaving, but the president’s approval rating dipped in light of the grim pictures of civilians
exit. Future investigations will determine if could have been done better. Polls showed Americans in favor of leaving, but the president’s approval rating dipped in light of the grim pictures of civiliansclinging to U.S. military aircraft at the Kabul airport. Republicans pounced on the optics and slammed Biden for how he handled the end game, ignoring the fact former President Donald Trump, before leaving office, set a deadline for an even earlier American departure.

We think the exit presents a topic for another time.

Today, and in posts that will come later, we focus on the way the United States got involved in Afghanistan, how and why we stayed as long as we did, and what lessons the  experience teaches. The issue involves fundamental principles of constitutional law, foreign policy, and the American role in the world.

                                    

The Legal Framework for War

America’s constitution provides a specific process for going to war. Since the end of the Second World War, it’s never been followed. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare

war. Though Article II, Section 2 makes the president Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress, not the executive, was supposed to have authority to involve the country in wars.

Why has this happened? First, Congress let

it happen. That’s what occurred with Afghanistan. President George W. Bush, after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, sought and received from Congress  what’s called an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It wasn’t a

declaration of war against a specific country, but a grant of authority that the president could use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those who planned and carried out the attacks.

The measure passed 98-0 in the Senate and with 

one dissenting vote – California’s Barbara Lee – in the House of Representatives. Lee said she voted ‘no’ not because she thought a military response was unwarranted, but because she believed the broadly worded AUMF provided a blank check for endless conflict. The record shows her foresight. Besides being the 

basis for two decades

of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, by 2016, that AUMF had been cited 37 times as a justification for military actions in 14 countries and on the high seas. Presidents from both parties used it in justifying their actions -- Bush 18 times, Barack Obama 19 times.

 

An Old Movie

The story of how the U.S. got involved in, and stayed, in Afghanistan so long seems uncomfortably familiar. The Korean War was never declared. American troops participated as part of a United Nations “police action.”  Seventy years later, we still have 28,500 military personnel in Korea. We understand the South Koreans want us there and we recognize that perhaps we have strategic interests we didn’t have in Afghanistan. There was, however, no declaration of war and we’ve stayed a long time. Those are just the facts.

Vietnam was different, but in degree, not kind.

Congress didn’t declare war. It authorized the use of military force in response to an incident involving an American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. President Lyndon Johnson used that authorization as a basis for sending over half a million U.S. troops into a civil war that had been grinding on in South Vietnam for years. We stayed until we lost, at a cost of 58,220 U.S. military lives and $168 billion (a trillion in today’s dollars).

Our more recent involvements in the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq haven’t been different.  Those were presidential operations, accompanied by some kind of congressional authorization that amounted to a rubber stamp of what the president wanted. In neither case did Congress declare war. Desert Storm ended quickly, but Iraq dragged on and on. We still have 2500 troops there.

 

The Failure of Limits

As we’ll note in coming posts, Congress has tried reigning in the ability of presidents to wage war by themselves. In 1973, it passed the War Powers Act which seeks a balance between congressional oversight of the country’s involvement in war and

the commander-in-chief role the constitution gives the chief executive.  The president must tell Congress within 48 hours when he or she has ordered U.S. military forces into action and requires removal of troops from that involvement after 60 days if Congress hasn’t declared war or otherwise authorized the operation.  

This hasn’t worked. The statute has never ended a foreign military operation.  The 60-day time limit has rarely been triggered. Presidents from both ends of the ideological spectrum have ignored it -- Ronald Reagan in his El Salvador intervention, Bill Clinton in Kosovo, and Barack Obama in Libya.

How we got into and stayed in Afghanistan may well represent a case study in the way presidents violate both the constitution and the War Powers Act. We’ll dive into that question when we pick up this topic in our next post.          

TRUMP AND A CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED “SIGNING STATEMENTS”: ANOTHER REASON FOR VOTING

In the American system, Congress passes laws,  the president signs and carries them out, and the courts interpret them or

determine if they’re constitutional, right?  It turns out it’s not quite that simple. Thanks to signing statements, presidents may put their thumbs on the scale and say more about what a law means, in practice, than does Congress.

 

President Trump exerted that kind of presidential primacy in connection with a key portion of the $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the nation through the current coronavirus pandemic. Congress

passed that legislation March 27 and Trump signed it the same day. Hours later he released a signing statement indicating he doesn’t intend on complying with all the provisions of the law that would assure transparency in the $500 billion part of the legislation aimed at helping corporations. So, what’s a signing statement and can Trump do what he said he’d do?

A Tradition from Nowhere

Signing statements express a president’s view of the constitutionality of specific legislation or how his interpretation of the legislation will guide enforcement of it or its

anticipated impact. They date back to James Monroe’s presidency. Ronald Reagan rapidly expanded its use in the 1980s. The Gipper issued 250 of them. In only one term, his successor, George H.W. Bush, issued 228. Bill Clinton

issued 381 during his eight years in the White House, Barack Obama 37. Historians now regard George W. Bush as the king of signing statements. Though he issued only 161 separate signing statements, he used them in challenging over 1000 provisions of various laws. The great classicist and historian Garry Wills once told an audience the younger Bush challenged more provisions of laws through signing statements than all his predecessors combined.

 

Despite this history, the federal constitution does not include a signing statement provision. They’ve just sort of become part of the legislative process. Members of Congress and others have challenged the actions presidents have taken through signing statements. Such challenges assert the president acted in a way at odds with the intent of Congress in passing the law at issue. The challenges have a mixed record, with the outcome of the cases turning on whether the court concluded the president did or did not enforce the law as Congress intended. Courts have not, however, declared the practice of issuing and using signing statements unconstitutional. 

  

Trump and the Stimulus Legislation

Trump said his administration wouldn’t treat the stimulus legislation as permitting the inspector general provided for in the bill (also known as  the SIGPR) to issue reports to Congress without his approval. In other words, the special inspector general couldn’t give Congress potentially damaging information about how the $500 billion corporate relief part of the package is being

spent unless Trump personally approved. Congressional Democrats and watchdog groups fear much of the $500 billion will get used by corporations for things like stock buybacks and executive bonus payments, not worker salaries as Congress intended.

Trump’s signing statement flies in the face of

the transparency congressional Democrats, in particular, fought for in passing the bill. Many in Congress don’t trust that Trump and his Treasury

Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, will make sure the money benefits workers, not corporate executives as occurred with TARP money during the Great Recession of 2008.

               

Certainly, presidents have used signing statements for reasons that don’t suggest evil. These include telling the public what the president expects as a likely effect of the legislation or guiding subordinates in carrying out the legislative purpose. Presidents have also used signing statements in advising the public he views some part of the bill as unconstitutional and expects a court challenge. Trump, however, suggested none of these things in his statement. He just made clear the public will find out only what he wants it to find out about the $500 billion. 

     

What to Do

When someone with dishonest motives occupies the White House, the temptation

arises to say that the courts or Congress or someone should get rid of signing statements. After all, they have no textual foundation in the constitution and Congress has never enacted a statue providing for them. 

History, though, shows that presidents in both parties use them, perhaps for good reason.

Signing statements may, under certain circumstances, function as part of our system of checks and balances. Congress, for example, could go off the deep end with ill-advised legislation a president prefers not vetoing because it contains provisions

addressing a serious national need. A signing statement, and subsequent presidential action, limiting the negative impact of the bad parts of the legislation may represent the best course for the country. Perhaps signing statements aren’t all bad.  We believe the country can take some

comfort in knowing that the courts remain the final arbiter of any action the president takes pursuant to the execution of any signing statement.

The presence of signing statements in our system illustrates the power of the presidency

and emphasizes the importance of getting right who occupies that office. In November the voters weigh in on who can issue signing statements the next four years. As we’ve said before, we can’t mess this up.