Phil Brennan
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004

Story Continues Below

  Nothing has changed since. Departing Secretary of State Colin Powell faced the same problem of disloyalty, and he was also ill-served by his underlings who kept open phone lines to the New York Times and the Washington Post and used them as conduits for an endless flow of leaks designed to stir up dissension between a president they hated and their boss, Colin Powell.

Barely a week went by without some anti-Bush State Department functionary passing stories designed to create an atmosphere of "let's you and him fight," setting up a scenario falsely showing the secretary doing an imagined slow burn over his alleged mistreatment by his boss, George W. Bush. Assured by the Times, which always identified them only as "high-ranking" State Department officials, that they'd never be exposed as the disloyal backstabbers they were, they fought a behind-the-scenes guerrilla war against the administration and ultimately their boss.

I am not saying that there was not some disagreement between the secretary and the White House over some administration policies, but unlike the saboteurs in his department, in his relations with the president Powell was frank and open concerning areas where his views were at odds with those of George W. Bush.

And when the president's views prevailed, as was to be expected, Colin Powell was what he had always been: a good and loyal soldier who put the welfare of his nation above his own.

A cautious man, he tended to prefer a cautious approach in matters of great import such as Iraq and the war, and I am convinced that he had a great impact on the course of events and that his views were always taken into consideration by a president who respected this remarkable man and regognized his duty to advance the policies he favored.

Colin Powell's position was that of a diplomat charged with maintaining comity between America and our world neighbors while defending his nation's policies with which much of the world disagreed. Having his disloyal subordinates snapping at his heels did nothing to make that near-impossible job easier.

I can't help thinking that in many ways the conflict between Colin Powell and the administration's take-no-prisoners hawks resembled the conflict between Benjamin Franklin and John Adams when both men were on diplomatic missions in Europe at the same time.

Franklin was a skilled diplomat who had a thorough understanding of the European mindset. In London and Paris he moved easily among those he sought to influence on America's behalf. And he acted like a proper European, observing all the dainty little Parisian niceties and dancing a graceful gavotte in a style that marked him as a civilized man of the world representing what was seen by the oh-so-civilized French as the liberal elite of today view Bush country: a red state among nations filled with uncouth barbarians and religious fanatics.

As his biographer Claude-Anne Lopez wrote, Franklin "was temperamentally suited for France. The streak of irreverence that ran through his entire life found a congenial reception in Paris, as did his love of laughter and desire to amuse. He did not shock the French, nor did his interest in women, which was considered perfectly normal."

Franklin knew what he had to do to advance the interests of his fledgling country and he set out to do it, with overwhelming success. He made himself the darling of European haute society - a certified gentleman from a land of bumpkins and near savages.

Adams, a perfect red-stater, was appalled by what he saw as Franklin's obeisance to what he regarded as Europe's dissolute ways. This brilliant, sophisticated, insightful patriot and founding father could not bring himself to see how a fellow American could adapt himself to what Adams regarded as a corrupt and degenerate European society of the sort he and his fellow patriots had just fought a war against, and in letters home he sought to undercut his colleague.

Colin Powell may not have been another Benjamin Franklin, adapting the sissified ways of the Quai d'Orsay to further America's interests, but he performed brilliantly under the most difficult of circumstances. While he may have disagreed with the administration on many key issues, he put his full energies into defending them from critics here and abroad because that was his job.

This combat veteran may have been a cautious hawk, but he was no dove. And when push came to shove, he was right there in the front lines, standing with his president. Colin Powell served his nation superbly well, and he deserves what he never got from his State Department subordinates: the admiration and respect of his fellow Americans.

Now, Condi, about that idea of Dulles ...

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com

Editor's note: