In the 1990’s US General Colin Powell was credited with developing what is know as the [Powell Doctrine] .
The Powell doctrine was a series of questions the first ever Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Bronx native of Jamaican parents developed.
The idea behind the Powell doctrine was to establish beforehand whether certain fundamental criteria had been met before engaging the American Military in a war.
1 Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2. Do we have a clear attainable objective? 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7. Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
If those questions are answered “yes” ‚General Powell believed that The United States should use all necessary force to get the job done, do it and go home.
Powell also believe that a nation should never engage in war it could potentially lose. If there is any potential for a loss then it may be a good idea not to get into a fight.
Colin Powell figured America was in no real danger from other Nation states because of it’s immense military might. As such he felt it was not in America’s best interest to get involved in military skirmishes but should only engage militarily where America’s vital interest are at stake.
Using the Powell logic ( without referencing his name) I recently wrote about the ongoing inane and ridiculous campaign Jamaica’s People’s National Party was waging against the Leader of the Opposition Labor Party’s house.
In the Article I argued that the debate was a product of the envy Michael Manley sowed in the 1970’s when he was prime Minister of the Island.
HOLNESS’S HOUSE A PRODUCT OF ENVY MANLEY SOWED…..
The Article has drawn a massive and visceral rebuke from Manley’s cultists both on the Island and in the diaspora, the majority of whom decided that personally attacking me was the best way of registering their discontent since they couldn’t credibly refute the facts of my arguments.
I understand just how frustrating it must be for those orange-cool-aid-drinkers to be totally endued with a philosophy which was largely built on fiction.
It was never my intention to speak to Michael Manley’s intent when he said there were five flights leaving for Miami and those who disagreed with his policies should board those flights.
His unmitigated gall was astounding, as if the country was his.
Despite his arrogance however Michael Manley realized the error of his ways and in hindsight he spoke of his regret in making those statements.
Notwithstanding those who worship at the altar of denial chose to attack without one iota of evidence which discredits the assertions I made.
In fact Michael Manley’s son Joseph Manley may have made the best argument in support of my contentions.
In a Facebook rant supposedly in defense of Peter Phillips who now faces questions about his house, Joseph Manley the son of Michael Manley said Quote
” Opposition Leader, Andrew Holness’ house is “vulgar and over-sized” .
Vulgar and over-sized! What real man talks about another man’s house in those terms? What’s next his wife is too pretty? Where does the envy stop ?
You really cannot make this s**t up. If those aren’t words which reflect envy will someone please tell me what they stem from , I am willing to learn.
The ideological tenets of Manley’s so-called Democratic Socialism was in essence a crawling peg slide into Fidel Castro’s Communism. Thankfully the generation of voters at the time had the good sense to reject that ideology wholesale in 1980.
Michael Manley was a son of privilege,like Franklin Delano Roosevelt Manley was seen by many as a traitor to his class . Michael Manley saw the social and societal ills plaguing the young Jamaican nation and wanted change.
For that Manly is to be commended. Good intentions which resulted in wholesale chaos does not insulate Manley from the criticism he justly deserve. Referencing his good intentions may have mitigating value but good intentions are not grounds for absolution.
In a October 20o4 speech delivered to the Florida Atlantic University First Michael Manley Symposium, Professor David P. Rowe poignantly asked and answered .…..
Did Michael Manley trample on anybody’s rights once he achieved high office? Did the Fabianism of the London School of Economics accommodate individual rights and freedoms?
Shortly after Manley’s election in 1972, the ‘pork barrel’ started and Jamaicans were treated to the ‘Special Employment’ or ‘crash’ program, an unfortunate blatant reward for party supporters, for voting the right way in the l972 elections.
The Special Employment Program was legally valid but probably mis-managed as the participants were the targets of political pressure.
Crash program workers were seen receiving large cheques for what appeared to be almost no work and the impression given was that if you were from ‘downtown’, you were a ‘sufferer’ and had the right to ‘free’ money. The crash program money gave way to national ideology.
Manley was extremely popular, but not for the upliftment of the Constitutional Rights of poor people, Professor Rowe wrote.
http://www.constitution-and-rights.com/manleyRights.htm.
As is customary with the masses of Jamaicans the conventional wisdom is to react to form over substance. As I have said repeatedly their love affair with Manley, the People’s National Party and the regressive ideology of that party is similar to cotton candy, sweet to the taste leaves you thirsty and is ultimately bad for your health.
It was not my intention to trumpet the intent of Michael Manley. A true leader is judged by his/her decision making and not necessarily by his/her ability to move a crowd.
Michael Manley wanted to change the plight of the poor we can credit him for trying while we judge him for his inability to understand Geo-politics.
If every dollar is taken from the richest people among us and divided among the world’s poor it would not change the paradigm. “You can’t make the poor rich by making the rich poorer” .(Abraham Lincoln)
Chasing away the productive sector was not helping the poor, it was ensuring that for generations the poorer class would be slaves to abject poverty.
Embracing Castro at the heights of the cold war while thumbing his nose at the United States may have played well on a campaign stage.
It may have impressed thousands of non-Spanish speaking Jamaicans who cheered Castro while never understanding a single syllable outside the words “companero Manley”.
When the rubber meets the road however it is “Quixotic” to pick a fight with an adversary you cannot beat.
Michael Manley was a terrific leader in the fight against oppression and racial bigotry undeniably. As a schoolboy I was proud of the work he did in bringing to the fore the plight of the suffering people of Southern Africa and in many ways the release of Nelson Mandela from prison.
Unfortunately even as Manley championed the case for freedom on the International stage he never understood when not to fight or who not t0 pick a fight with.
In the end the talk about the CIA involvement in Jamaica which resulted in Manley’ undoing is not exactly an argument which merits serious dialogue.
It establishes that Manley’s Quixotic crusade against the Capitalist west was an effort in futility which caused more pain than gain.
Like Colin Powell said, if potentially you may lose do not go to war.
Many have asked why Dr. Martin Luther King did not wage a violent struggle in the United States against Racial oppression and segregation?
The simple answer is that he had no chance of winning . That is the difference. When you cannot win do not fight , try negotiating not antagonizing>
I am prepared to continue this debate with those who feel they can debate on the merits.