This Week at War: The Long Death of the Powell Doctrine

What the four-stars are reading -- a weekly column from Small Wars Journal.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | MARCH 5, 2010

Mullen finished off the Powell Doctrine

After a long illness and years of neglect, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, finally euthanized the Powell Doctrine. Mullen administered the coup de grâce in a speech he delivered on March 3 at Kansas State University.

During his tenure as chairman, Gen. Colin Powell stated the principles he thought the U.S. government should follow when contemplating the use of military force. According to Powell, the situation should involve a vital national security interest. There should be a clear and obtainable objective. A clear exit strategy should be planned from the beginning. The action should have broad political support. The military plan should employ decisive and overwhelming force in order to achieve a rapid result. And the country should use force only as a last resort. Powell's principles were no doubt the product of his negative experiences as an officer during the Vietnam War and the results of Operation Desert Storm, which seemed at the time to be a vindication of his ideas.

Needless to say, the deployments of U.S. military force this decade have obeyed precious few of these guidelines. Powell wrote his doctrine in an attempt to keep the United States from thoughtlessly involving itself in ill-defined and open-ended military quagmires. But critics have argued that modern irregular adversaries have exploited gaps the doctrine left uncovered. By this view, rigid adherence to the Powell Doctrine would prevent the United States from having any effective response to irregular warfare challenges. Neither the Bush nor Obama administrations have followed its precepts.

So what is the new Mullen Doctrine? For the chairman, the issue of whether the United States will employ military force has long been settled. The issue now is how the United States should apply its national power. Mullen summed up his views this way:

We must not look upon the use of military forces only as a last resort, but as potentially the best, first option when combined with other instruments of national and international power. 

We must not try to use force only in an overwhelming capacity, but in the proper capacity, and in a precise and principled manner. And we must not shrink from the tug of war -- no pun intended -- that inevitably plays out between policymaking and strategy execution. Such interplay is healthy for the republic and essential for ultimate success.

The Mullen Doctrine accepts that every day for the foreseeable future, U.S. military forces will shoot at, or will be shot at, by somebody somewhere in the world. Given this seemingly permanent state of war, Mullen says that politicians, soldiers, and the public will need to engage in an open-ended discussion that will constantly adjust how the country employs its military forces.

Mullen assumes that the public now accepts that low-level warfare is an enduring fact of life. If he is wrong about this, the Powell Doctrine could rise from the grave.

J. DAVID AKE/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: MILITARY
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

FARHANSK

3:31 AM ET

March 6, 2010

You missed India and Israel

"Albright is hopeful that the early detection of a possible Burmese nuclear effort will enable the international community to stop such a program, in contrast to its failure to do so with the Syrian reactor, with Iran's program, and with Pakistan in the 1970s" ------------ unquote

So you mentioned all others less India and Israel. Are their programmes legitimate or where ever US does secret nuclear cooperation, it is legitimate and where some other state does, it is illegal. What a double standard!!

 

SET

6:15 PM ET

March 6, 2010

Interesting article. I still

Interesting article. I still feel the Powell doctrine will hold up well for a more conventional type of war--nation state vs. nation state, and elements from his doctrine still hold true for the type of conflict in which we are currently engaged. I can't argue with concepts of "vital national interest" and "broad politcal support." These will always be crucial when the decision is made to use military force.

 

WILDTHING

8:19 PM ET

March 6, 2010

national defense

So national defense is out of the picture and it is national offense to protect national strategic interests regardless of international law. That is nationalism and the rule of Might Makes Right and as such is a doictrine about as old as time and just as destructive and subject to abuse and self rationalization of anything a country wishes. Or perhaps a think tanks fantasyland..

 

LUVMY91STANG

9:55 PM ET

March 6, 2010

The First Option?

"We must not look upon the use of military forces only as a last resort, but as potentially the best, first option when combined with other instruments of national and international power."

The Admiral has lost his mind and this is a recipe for trouble.

 

CONFER

6:19 PM ET

March 7, 2010

The Powell Doctrine; dead?

It appears that Admiral Mullen wants a "doctrine" with his own name on it.

Thoughts that "rigid adherence to the Powell Doctrine would prevent... any effective response to irregular warfare challenges" doesn't process well. General Powell gets it. The Powell Doctrine states succinctly that when the military is to be used as an extension of policy, it be used correctly. Not only does one not see that the present conflicts make his strategies outmoded, it puts his doctrine in even sharper focus. Here is a very relevant portion of Mr. Powell's Doctrine: "should employ decisive and overwhelming force in order to achieve a rapid result". Whithout question, this thinking would have saved lives, limbs, and yes, money in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Surging" (although too late) in both of these countries underscores the cause and affect of this concept. Alas, too few combat forces will make future surges problematic.

 

JAYDEE001

11:37 AM ET

March 8, 2010

The general's want the long war

"Mullen assumes that the public now accepts that low-level warfare is an enduring fact of life. If he is wrong about this, the Powell Doctrine could rise from the grave."

The underlying assumption is that the US has a right, if not an obligation to intervene militarily in any situation, anywhere in the world, whenever local situations do not meet our expectations or our wishes. This is more of the argument that the US is the 'indispensable nation'. The public will eventually tire of Mullen's doctrine. When it is carried to its logical conclusion, it means we will be in a constant war mode, with no end to our foreign engagements in sight; the generals will like that because it makes the military the indispensable force. But the cost to our nation will eventually be too great to bear.

Powell and others of his generation of military leaders came out of Vietnam with the realization that wars of long duration, costly interms of lives and treasure, would not be supported by the public in the end, when the justifcation for the military engagement was no longer clear. The Powell Doctrine set the bar very high for the use of US military force. Too bad that Rumsfeld, et al did not adhere to it - we would have avoided the greatest military and foreigh policy tragedy of our history.

 

REDPINE

11:56 AM ET

March 8, 2010

Self Fullfilling Prophecy

Acceptance of a permanent state of war (and even without claiming that the US is a fascist state, this notion is certainly reminiscent of certain fascist doctrines!) and fostering a "national dialogue" based on such a postulate is a mistake. To do so is to mistake the role of policy. If the Powell Doctrine is indeed dead, it is only so because it was rejected in the initiation and management of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are in a state of permanent war because overwhelming force was not used, and political support did not line up fully behind the conflicts. The Mullen Doctrine is then a self fullfilling prophecy of sorts. If war is used as a first/best option then the US falls into a permanent state of war (say in Iraq). This permanent state of war causes escalation of hostilities between geopolitical entities (Say now between the US and Iraq's neighbors, say Iran), which generates war being undertaken as a first/best option (War with Iran). Repeat.
We need the Powell Doctrine to derail this process.

 

WILDTHING

1:02 PM ET

March 22, 2010

ticking time bombs

The erroneous and inttentionally deceptive reasons for invading Iraq are a ticking time bomb that will sooner or later go off. We know it happened, we know who did it and it is an imminent threat to world peace and the national security of all nations. Might Makes Right is not a pretty sight!!!

Additionally the constitutionality of wars for lies which has often been the case is going to soon have to be addressed because the Commander-in-Chiefs have become power hungry and assume a blank check to spend American lives frivolously. The 20th century of nationalism and national strategic interests in a globalized world do not do not translate well into this new world. If the most powerful countries are going to fight to corner scare resources we have going to have a very bad time.