Colin Powell's endorsement of Senator Obama signifies the culmination of a long simmering split within the conservative foreign policy establishment between neoconservatives and pragmatists. The Republican foreign policy establishment was once dominated by foreign policy realists and pragmatists such as Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and Robert Gates.  However, following the events of September 11th, the neoconservative world view advocated by Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and John Bolton became ascendant, causing tremendous tension within the Bush administration.  As the neoconservative experiment in Iraq has proven to be a failure, pragmatists have reasserted some authority in the final years of the Bush administration.  But the Iraq War has undoubtedly deepened the divide.

John McCain clearly represents a continuation of the neoconservative foreign policy philosophy.  His early, relentless, and unequivocal support for the Iraq war has been in line with the Necons.  As has his refusal to negotiate with Iran - a position that Secretary Gates himself disagreed with when he chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on Iran in 2004.  McCain's hardline response to the Russia crisis echoes that of John Bolton, not Henry Kissinger or George Schultz, who have both advocated caution.  And McCain's approach to dealing with our allies, creating a new League of Democracies, is opposed by pragmatists and supported by Neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan.

Thus, it is not at all surprising to see a number of pragmatists breaking with the Republican nominee.  Colin Powell's dramatic endorsement of Barack Obama was the clearest example.  Senator Richard Lugar, former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has endorsed Obama's view towards diplomacy.  Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor to George H.W. Bush, refused to endorse either candidate, as has Republican Chuck Hagel, whose foreign policy views are clearly in line with Obama's. 

The question coming out of this election will be whether the pragmatists return to the Republican fold and take back the mantle of leadership from the Necons, or whether they continue to move away from the Republican Party and perhaps even join the Democrats.

The Bush Administration Has Been Divided Between The Pragmatists And The Neocons

From the start there was an ideological division between the Neocons and pragmatists, which was most evident when it came to the issue of Iraq.  At the time, the New York Times reported that, "the philosophical discord that is becoming increasingly obvious in the current Bush administration has deep roots in the last.   Hawk versus dove, unilateralist versus multilateralist, whatever one calls these disagreements, few experts think they will go away. In fact, the divide in the administration is likely to affect not only future choices on Iraq but also on North Korea, Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians, and military issues like missile defense." In the run up to the war, the philosophical divide was sharp.  "Mr. Cheney, who was highly skeptical of Secretary Powell's proposal to seek a Security Council resolution to send inspectors to Baghdad, will probably disagree again over whether to ask for Security Council approval before using military force, officials and diplomats predict. 'This is a profound philosophical argument that may come up again and again,' said a Western diplomat close to Secretary Powell. 'At issue is whether the United States should continue to operate through the international system or go it alone. Powell is keeping the hard-liners at bay.'" [NY Times 9/24/02]

As time went on, Colin Powell and other pragmatists were marginalized during Bush's first term.   It has only been in the final year of the Bush administration that the pragmatists have truly regained their footing.  There have been "longstanding foreign policy conflicts within the administration that have often pitted Mr. Powell against Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Powell and the State Department staff have clashed repeatedly with Mr. Rumsfeld and his team at the Pentagon over Iraq and other issues."  We have seen an important shift in the past year.  Secretary Gates and Condoleezza Rice now seem to have more influence that Dick Cheney and the Neoconservative wing.  On issue after issue the Bush administration has finally moderated.  "The administration has pushed ahead with high-level diplomatic negotiations with Iran and North Korea, agreed to a 'time horizon' for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and announced plans last week to shift troops and other resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government's approval -- an idea that Obama first endorsed, and was heavily criticized for, last year." [NY Times, 2/4/04.  Washington Post, 9/15/08]

McCain's Neoconservative Positions are Not in Line with the Pragmatists

Iraq

McCain:  From the start, John McCain was an outspoken supporter of the neoconservative plan to invade Iraq.  "That's where the tough part of this whole scenario is going to begin. And that is that, after the Taliban are overthrown -- which I believe they will be -- I have very little doubt in my mind -- after bin Laden is either taken prisoner or killed and his network is destroyed, then what's next? Obviously, Iraq is still bent on -- Saddam Hussein is still bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, the Iranians are still supporting terrorist organizations, as are the Syrians. That's where the tough choices and decisions are going to be made." [MSNBC, Hardball, 10/3/01]

Neocons:  Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the war in Iraq would spread democracy throughout the Middle East.  "Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab 'street,' the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991." [Cheney, 8/02]

Pragmatists:  

Brent Scowcroft was critical of the administration during the run up to the war. "'How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.' And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. 'This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism.'  The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. 'I'm not a pacifist,' he said.' I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force.'"  "I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes.   You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it." [The New Yorker, 10/31/05. Scowcroft, 8/15/02]

In his new book Bob Woodward outlines Colin Powell's objections to the war in Iraq.  Tom Brokaw quoted from Woodward's book and questioned Powell on meet the press, "'Powell . . . didn't think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small.  He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference--even obedience--to the president.  . . .  Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer' for the president's case on war. . .' And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group.  'Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?' [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. 'Colin just exploded at that point, [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later.  'He unloaded, Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added.  'He was angry.  He was mad as hell.' . . .  Powell left [the Study Group meeting].  Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He's the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.'"  [Meet the Press, 10/19/08]

Iran

McCain:  McCain has consistently opposed engaging with Iran.  From his reckless "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" remark to his characterization of tough negotiations as appeasement, Senator McCain has consistently followed the approach of the Bush administration that has utterly failed to hinder Iran's nuclear development.  He has consistently derided Barack Obama as naïve for willing to have tough direct diplomacy with Iran.  McCain has instead called for more sanctions and the continuation of a policy that has not worked for the past five years. [John McCain, 4/18/07. John McCain, 5/15/08. John McCain conference call, 5/15/08. JohnMcCain.com. John McCain, 1/15/06]

Neocons:  Richard Perle rejected the Bush administration's attempts at diplomacy."President George W. Bush's words on Iran have been clear and unmistakable, but the administration's decision to negotiate with the clerics on nuclear energy has weakened the U.S. position and has sent mixed messages to Iranian dissidents who look to the United States for support. . . she [Secretary Rice] is now in the midst of--and increasingly represents--a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries. [Richard Perle, 7/21/06]

Pragmatists: 

Defense Secretary Gates chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force that in 2004 advocated direct talks with Iran.  "The United States' long lack of direct contact with, and presence in, Iran drastically impedes its understanding of Iran's domestic, as well as regional, dynamics. In turn, this reduces Washington's influence across the Middle East in ways that are manifestly harmful to its ultimate interests. Direct dialogue approached candidly and without restrictions on issues of mutual concern would serve Iran's interests. And establishing connections with Iranian society would directly benefit U.S. national objectives of enhancing the stability and security of this critical region."  [CFR, 2004]

James Baker disagrees with McCain on Iran.  Despite his support for John McCain, James Baker's position on negotiations with Iran align with Barack Obama, not John McCain.  "You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well. Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement." Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time." Baker concluded: "All I am saying, that would never happened if I, if we, hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it." [James Baker, 10/6/06]

Russia

McCain:  John McCain has taken a radically hawkish approach towards Russia.  Whether it be saying he " looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three things - a K and a G and a B," his proposal to kick Russia out of the G8, or his reaction to the Russia Georgia crisis, McCain has taken an aggressive stance in line with the hardliners in the Bush administration.  Earlier this year McCain declared that, "Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible."  Then following the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia, McCain belligerently proclaims, "Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe," declaring, "we are all Georgians." [Reuters, 8/11/08. Salon, 6/09/08]

Neocons:  John Bolton took a hardline approach to the Russian war with Georgia similar to that of McCain.  "As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. . . The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain's moment in the spotlight at Munich. . . Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a 'faraway country', as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten." [Bolton, 8/15/08]

Pragmatists:

Kissinger and Schultz have argued for a less confrontational approach towards Russia.  "This drift toward confrontation must be ended. However appropriate as a temporary device for showing our concern, isolating Russia is not a sustainable long-range policy. It is neither feasible nor desirable to isolate a country adjoining Europe, Asia and the Middle East and possessing a stockpile of nuclear weapons comparable to that of the United States. Given Russia's historically ambivalent and emotionally insecure relations with its environment, this approach is not likely to evoke considered or constructive responses. Even much of Western Europe is uneasy about such a course."  [Washington Post, 10/8/08]

The pragmatists agree: we should not overreact to crisis.  As the conflict between Russia and Georgia erupted, John McCain recklessly issued bellicose statements, condemning Russia without waiting for all the facts.  However, Henry Kissinger was not as rash, "We have to face the fact that the first shot in Georgia was fired on the Georgian side.  Now, Russia reacted in an excessive manner, but we should not make the whole relationship depend on the pictures that you showed. And I would urge the new President, as I am urging this President to explore the possibilities of cooperation and be very sure before we go the route of cutting off WTO and the other international measures for which cooperation with Russia may be very important." James Baker agreed with Kissinger's assessment saying, "Look at it in a strategic context and not tactically we have some big-picture issues that we need to be conscious of when we think about our future with Russia, and we ought to cooperate with them where we can, where they fit, but we ought to also be willing to confront them where our vital interests are involved. We are committed to the independence of these former republics of the former Soviet Union, and that should continue to be our position.  That doesn't mean we ought to send the 101st Airborne in to guard the South Ossetian border.  I mean, that would not make very good sense and that's not the kind of thing we ought to be speculating about." Secretary Powell also said, "Now, in the current situation the Russians acted brutally.  I think they acted foolishly.  But it was also absolutely predictable what the Russians would do.  You could see them stacking up their troops.  And I think it was foolhardy on the part of President Saakashvili and the Georgian government to kick over this can, to light a match in a room full of gasoline." When asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "So you're saying the Georgians provoked this." [CNAS, 9/15/08]

Allies

McCain:  John McCain has been a powerful proponent of the League of Democracies.  "Our organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront. . . This would be unlike Woodrow Wilson's doomed plan for the universal-membership League of Nations. Instead, it would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together for peace and liberty. The organization could act when the UN fails -- to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems. . . This League of Democracies would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action. By taking steps such as bringing concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma (renamed Myanmar by its military government in 1989) or Zimbabwe, uniting to impose sanctions on Iran, and providing support to struggling democracies in Serbia and Ukraine, the League of Democracies would serve as a unique handmaiden of freedom." [Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007]

Neocons:  Robert Kagan- Neocon Godfather- is one of few supporters for McCain's League of Democracies.  "[T]he world's democracies could make common cause to act in humanitarian crises when the UN Security Council cannot reach unanimity. If people find that prospect unsettling, then they should seek the disbandment of NATO and the European Union and other regional organizations which not only can but, in the case of Kosovo, have taken collective action in crises when the Security Council was deadlocked. The difference is that the league of democracies would not be limited to Europeans and Americans but would include the world's other great democracies, such as India, Brazil, Japan and Australia, and would have even greater legitimacy."

Pragmatists: Brent Scowcroft rejects McCain's League of Democracies proposal.  Brent "Scowcroft is said to have expressed reservations about Mr. McCain's call for creating a League of Democracies as a complement to the United Nations. An associate of Mr. Scowcroft said he viewed it as an effort to diminish the United Nations -- a target of scorn among neoconservatives -- and inhibit engagement with enemies." [NY Times, 4/10/08]

The Pragmatists are Finally Abandoning McCain and the Neoconservative Foreign Policy of the Last Eight Years

Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is a sign that progressives and pragmatists in different parties are more similar than pragmatists and Neocons in the same party.  On Meet the Press this week, Secretary Powell, said that "I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes." "The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan.  And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies.  And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach" [Meet the Press, 10/19/08]

Richard Lugar, Republican Co-chair of the Senate Foreign Committee supports Obama's approach to foreign policy.  "He [Obama] correctly cautions against the implication that hostile nations must be dealt with almost exclusively through isolation or military force.  In some cases, refusing to talk can even be dangerous." CQ politics reported that "Lugar also used his speech to underscore his concern that U.S. foreign policy has become too reactive. 'If most U.S. foreign policy attention is devoted to crises fomented by hostile regimes, we are ceding the initiative to our enemies and reducing our capacity to lead the world in ways that are more likely to affect our future.' "Lugar also rejected the military-centric foreign policy of John McCain and the Bush administration hawks, "Any realistic American foreign policy must redeploy diplomatic, military, scientific, and economic resources." [CQ Politics, 10/15/08. Lugar, 3/13/06] 

John McCain's friend and Republican colleague in the Senate, Chuck Hagel has rejected the influence of neocons in the party and has not endorsed McCain. "I am not happy with the Republican Party today.  It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." Hagel has rejected the foreign policy approach of John McCain, "I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way. I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential. You take some risks in talking about this, especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser. If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way.  What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."  [Huffington Post, 5/20/08. CBS, 5/13/07]

Brent Scowcroft refuses to endorse McCain.  The retired Air Force General and National Security Advisor for the elder Bush is considered one of the most important foreign policy thinkers in the Republican party, and he has refused to endorse John McCain for president considering "himself officially 'neutral' in the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain, and is willing to offer advice to either candidate. . . The fact that such a foreign policy heavyweight in the GOP could sit out a presidential election, however, reflects the lingering tension between the realist camp of advisers, including Gen. Colin Powell, who advised President George H.W. Bush, and the neoconservative clique that gained influence during the tenure of Bush 43." [Huffington Post, 7/23/08]