WASHINGTON — As a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, former national security adviser and now secretary of state, Colin Powell doesn’t like being micromanaged.
But that’s the way Powell feels these days after his latest trip to the Middle East, which yielded scant results, a senior administration official says.
And much of his frustration is directed at Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has a greater say over Middle East policy than his predecessors, says the official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. That region has been the traditional preserve of the secretary of state.
One core issue is the degree to which Israel should strike back militarily at Palestinians in response to suicide bombings and other attacks. Another issue is the extent to which Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat can be counted on to crack down on violence and deliver a peaceful settlement.
The Pentagon has made clear it favors wider latitude for Israel to press military operations against the Palestinians. And defense officials are among those in the Bush administration who seem to have given up on Arafat as a credible partner for peace.
Powell, while no fan of Arafat, has argued successfully so far that no peace accord is possible without the Palestinian leader.
Summing up the dilemma, former Pentagon aide Richard Perle said Tuesday that President Bush ultimately “has to decide how much confidence he wants to repose in Yasser Arafat and whether Arafat is part of the solution or part of the problem.”
Another quandary for Powell has been the mixed messages about Middle East policy, particularly from the White House. Days before Powell embarked on his Middle East mission, Bush demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his forces from the West Bank.
Powell then traveled to the Middle East, hoping for a show of flexibility from Sharon. But Bush appeared to undercut Powell by calling Sharon a “man of peace” despite Sharon’s seeming disregard for the president’s appeals.
The secretary of state’s frustration has reached a point where there are rumors — strongly denied by State Department officials — about a possible Powell resignation.
Reports of a Powell-Rumsfeld rift began surfacing not long after the Bush administration took office.
Last July, in a rare joint news conference in Australia, reporters peppered the two with questions about whether they were seeing eye-to-eye on policy issues.
“There is no real space between us, as suggested,” Powell said. Replied Rumsfeld, flashing a grin: “Are you trying to find some daylight between Colin and me?” They were perceived to have differing views on deployment of a missile defense and on re-engagement with North Korea, among other issues.
As America’s chief diplomat, Powell meets with fellow foreign ministers all the time and naturally is influenced by their views. Secretaries of state are more prone to attach importance to multilateral approaches and to coalition building. Defense secretaries spend less time with foreign diplomats and see the world through a different prism.
James Phillips, Middle East Expert at the Heritage Foundation, says he is not surprised that Powell and Rumsfeld may have policy differences. He says it’s hard for the administration to fight terrorism and to end the violence in the Middle East without conflicting views.
“The global war on terrorism impinges on the Middle East in many ways,” he says.
This is not the first time secretaries of state and defense have squared off. It was almost 20 years ago that Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger fought tooth and nail over Lebanon.
Shultz believed a strong U.S. military presence in the region would help bring stability; Weinberger thought the risks in having U.S. troops there were greater than any potential reward. At Weinberger’s side in those days was a top military aide named Colin Powell.
For Powell, not much has changed. Knowing what to do in the Middle East is no less difficult now than it was then.