EDITORIAL
For Powell, loyalty trumped leadership

If the American venture in Iraq ends successfully, Colin Powell will be remembered as the misfit on the Bush team who, when he could neither lead nor comfortably follow, at least had the grace to step out of the way.

But if the war turns out badly, as we have feared from the beginning, Powell will be seen as the secretary of state who knew better.

Powell had the respect and credibility to raise his concerns more forcefully, perhaps even change the course of events in Iraq. But for reasons still poorly understood, he publicly chose loyalty to his boss rather than leadership.

Of course, he leaked his misgivings generously to journalists like The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. Soldiers going into battle with doubts leave memos to cover their reputations; statesmen stake their careers when they see the need.

Powell, a retired four-star general, certainly saw the need. His study of what went wrong in Vietnam led to what came to be known as the Powell Doctrine. It states that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security; force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to that used by the enemy; there must be strong support by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy.

The only one of these tenets clearly met before the Iraq war was a national clamor for it — ironically resulting largely from Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations justifying military action in Iraq. History will decide whether Powell lowered his standards to endorse those exaggerated claims of the threat posed by Iraq, or was misled and co-opted by administration hawks.

Powell is to be replaced by Bush's foreign policy acolyte, brilliant but loyal to a fault Condoleezza Rice. That suggests another four years with State as well run as Powell ran it, but still unwilling to hazard contrary opinions.