THE ‘RIGHT STUFF’? 20 QUESTIONS FOR COLIN POWELL, OTHER CANDIDATES ON KEY SECURITY POLICY ISSUES

(Washington, D.C.): Predictably, the closer that
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell
gets to being an actual candidate for the presidency, the
more critical is the examination being given to his
record. For example, a just-completed investigation by
the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned General
Powell’s judgment in agreeing to deny AC-130 gunships to
the units sent to Somalia in a vain effort to capture
Mohammed Aideed. His decision was evidently made in
deference to the Clinton Administration’s political
sensibilities. It may, however, have contributed to the
politically cataclysmic loss of 18 U.S. servicemen in
Mogadishu.

An article by Charles Lane which appeared this spring
in the New Republic suggests that this is but one
of many instances in the career of a risk-averse officer
with a tendency to do the “politically correct”
thing. Such an image is further illuminated in the
acclaimed account of Operation Desert Storm, The
Generals’ War, written by retired Marine General
Bernard Trainor and New York Times correspondent
Michael Gordon. It portrays Colin Powell as: a strong
proponent of continuing economic sanctions for perhaps as
long as two years; a relentless skeptic on the utility of
air power; and an advocate for a frontal assault on
heavily fortified Iraqi positions in Kuwait, rather than
the end-run ultimately employed. These positions were
dubious at the time. In hindsight, it is clear that their
adoption as U.S. policy would have been exceedingly
costly, if not disastrous.

But post-mortems on Colin Powell’s past judgments are
one thing. To date, General Powell has not been seriously
pressed to clarify his views about the future —
specifically, his judgments about the sorts of security
policy problems that will likely confront the United
States over the next four years. Toward this end, the
following twenty questions (and their follow-ups) are
among those that he should be asked to address as soon as
possible:

1. You once said, in describing the threats posed to
   U.S. interests in the post-Cold War world “I
   am running out of enemies.” Do you still
   think that to be the case? If not, what threats
   does America face today and what will we confront
   tomorrow?
2. Specifically, how would you characterize the
   possibility that Russia will revert to form as an
   expansionist, even aggressive power? Do you think
   renewed U.S. military preparedness is in order,
   or can the challenge from Russia be managed
   exclusively by diplomatic and political means?
3. Is China becoming a danger to the United States
   or its regional interests? Will the U.S. have to
   contain China in the future — and how would you
   go about doing so?
4. Are you concerned by North Korea’s continuing
   military build-up? Should the U.S. attempt to
   buy-off the North Koreans with a package of
   financial and technical support that ultimately
   will give them a major nuclear reactor complex —
   particularly when oil-fired power-generators make
   more sense, assuming the stated purpose of
   generating electricity is really
   Pyongyang’s goal?
5. Were you surprised by recent revelations about
   the advanced state of the Iraqi weapons of mass
   destruction programs? What would you do to ensure
   that Saddam Hussein — or his successor — is
   denied the use of residual biological, chemical
   or nuclear weapons capabilities and the know-how
   that produced them?
6. Do you believe that Iran is aggressively pursuing
   the development of a nuclear weapons capability
   or that it otherwise poses a threat to Middle
   East oil supplies and stability? What should the
   U.S. do in response?
7. Does the possession of increasingly capable and
   longer-range ballistic missiles in the hands of
   each of these nations concern you? Does this
   represent a threat only to our allies and forces
   overseas — or, inevitably, to the American
   people, as well?
8. In light of these and other threats, do you think
   that President Clinton’s budget — which provides
   less than 3% of GNP for defense, the lowest level
   since before Pearl Harbor — is adequate? If not,
   what would you recommend? Are you concerned that
   the U.S. would find it difficult, if not
   impossible, to replicate the military force
   brought to bear in Desert Storm?
9. Specifically, do you consider the Clinton defense
   budget to be deficient since it provides no
   anti-missile protection for the American people?
   If you were President, would deployment of such
   protection be your highest national security
   priority? If not, why not?
10. Should the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty —
    which effectively precludes national anti-
    missile defenses and which has hampered the
    fielding of effective theater missile protection
    — be preserved? Or has the time come, as Sen.
    Bob Dole and Rep. Newt Gingrich have said, to
    begin defending America?
11. Has the arms control process, of which the ABM
    Treaty is but one example, served or disserved
    U.S. national security interests? What weight do
    you ascribe in that assessment to the continuing
    pattern of cheating by Moscow and others,
    cheating which has contributed to the seemingly
    unchecked proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction? Do you believe that the United
    States can afford to adhere unilaterally to arms
    control agreements?
12. Your recommendations have been influential in
    shaping U.S. policy toward the Bosnia crisis
    under the Bush and Clinton administrations.
    Knowing what you do now, would you have made
    different recommendations as JCS Chairman? What
    should the United States be doing in that
    conflict under present circumstances?
13. Should the U.S. recognize Taiwan as an
    independent nation? How would you respond to
    Chinese military threats to that island?
14. Is a Palestinian state on the West Bank
    inevitable as a result of the latest Israeli/PLO
    accord? Do you think the creation of such a state
    will promote regional stability or pose a threat
    to Israel’s security? Should Jerusalem remain the
    undivided capital of Israel? Do you favor giving
    Yasser Arafat American tax-dollars if he fails to
    comply with his agreements with Israel?
15. The Clinton Administration has placed great
    emphasis on multilateralism, particularly with
    respect to U.N. peacekeeping operations involving
    U.S. forces in several arenas. Do you support the
    Clinton approach?
16. What do you see as NATO’s role in the post-Cold
    War environment? Do you favor subordinating
    NATO’s operations in Bosnia or elsewhere to U.N.
    authority? Do you favor the alliance’s rapid
    enlargement?
17. Maintaining a modern, safe and credible nuclear
    deterrent has been a cornerstone of U.S. national
    security policy for decades. Do you believe that
    can be accomplished without periodic underground
    nuclear testing? Do you think a cessation of
    American testing will have any effect on nuclear
    proliferation, which seems to march on whether
    the U.S. tests or not?
18. America’s technology has long been recognized as
    a military force-multiplier, critical to the
    maintenance of the U.S. armed forces’ qualitative
    edge in combat. In today’s international
    environment, however, there seems to be little
    concern about the transfer of even sophisticated
    “dual-use” technology. Should we
    maintain controls on the transfer of our
    technology or not? Is the alternative to
    maintaining such controls a substantial increase
    in Pentagon investment in research and
    development and military procurement to try to
    preserve the American military’s qualitative
    edge?
19. What should U.S. policy be toward Fidel Castro’s
    Cuba? Do you favor economic engagement with that
    regime or the preservation — and possible
    tightening — of sanctions against it?
20. Do you believe that a political solution is
    possible in Northern Ireland and what role would
    you have the United States play in trying to
    bring one about? Would you be willing to risk
    serious harm to the U.S.-U.K. relationship to
    pursue this policy?

The Bottom Line

Of course, General Powell is not the only prospective
President to whom such questions should be urgently put.
Whether he likes it or not, the next occupant of the
White House is going to have to “do” foreign
policy. The American people and their national interests
will be better served if the candidates’ views and
judgments — both those of record and those that will be
brought to bear in the future — are properly vetted
early in the election process, rather than on-the-job.