Talk:Powell Doctrine

message: I'll check back in a day or two, but I believe that the interview was actually taken yesterday, "April 1, 2009." If no one speaks up, I am going to change that date before the weekend Kencomer (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of the Maddow Interview

message: I don't trust my own judgment here, since I'm so personally involved in the antiwar movement. But I would put it to any objective editor who sees this to think about discussing the historical context of the Powell Doctrine. 
That context ought to include the irony of the second war Powell himself was involved with after his criteria for going to war was popularized. That is, the run up to Gulf War II involved almost a point by point refutation of those criteria (lack of public support, lack of exit strategy, and lack of sufficient or overwhelming force for completing the mission). (unsigned)
Split the difference- "Some opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom maintain that the execution of this war violates the Powell doctrine..." or words to that effect. Roundeyesamurai 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a mention of Gulf War II failing the Powell Doctrine test? 

message: It is said that "This (the Powell Doctrine) may oppose the  principle of proportionality, but there are grounds to suppose that principles of Just War may not be violated". Surely, there should be an exact description of what those grounds are? Otherwise, the Powell Doctrine  seems to be special pleading for a practice that runs exactly counter to the the principle of proportionality and accordingly contravenes the criteria for the Just War  and of both Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.
Fenton Robb 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of overwhelming force results in the least casualties on both sides. Proportionality means different things when it comes to before, during, and after the war. Before (jus ad bellum), "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms", during (jus in bello), "An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).", and after (just pos bellum), "Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated.". Use of overwhelming force is actually more in line with jus ad bellum and jus in bello. If you merely restricted yourself to using an amount of force equal to the aggressive parties, they would be more likely to bleed themselves dry fighting, rather than surrendering quickly. It's more about showing what you could do, than actually doing it.65.0.172.246 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Powell Doctrine breach the Principle of Proportionality?

message: By advising "After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers" the Doctrine advises breaching the laws governing military occupation which require the occupying power to preserve law and order and not to leave until a properly constituted authority is established. Surely the Powell Doctrine was qualified - if so - how?
Fenton Robb 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. I suppose it could be argued however that the occupying force need not be the invading force, and that the invaders could hand over power to a third party while local government is re-established. For example NATO invaded Kosovo, but it was the UN which took over as the long term occupying force while the region's constitutional mess was sorted out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Powell Doctrine really advocate breaching the laws governing Military Occupation?

message: I'm a new wikipedia user but the second reference on the page refers to a reuters article that no longer exists. 
I found the original and was wondering if someone could update it.
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-iraq-like-vietnam-lessons-learned.html
Nonissue (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist Update 

message: I'm no expert in this area, but I happened to be glancing through an ebook edition of  In chapter 14 there, titled "IN THE SHADOW OF VIETNAM : The Powell Doctrine and Small Wars in the 1990s", I see a version of the Powell Doctrine which differs markedly from the version given in this article. The version given there is (quoting):
For comparison, from the article:
# Is a vital national security interest threatened?
# Do we have a clear attainable objective?
# Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
# Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
# Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
# Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
# Is the action supported by the American people?
# Do we have genuine broad international support?
I looked at the source cited in support of the version given in the article (), and do not see support there for the version given in the article.
It seems to me that this deserves a look by editors with more topical expertise than I. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another version of the Powell Doctrine