Do the neocons agree with Powell about <i>anything</i>?

The more I think about the foreign policy divisions within the Bush administration, the more I believe it is without precedent in American history.

As the LA Times noted today, it’s not unusual for there to be criticism from GOP hawks against a more moderate State Department. In the 1950s, Secretary of State Dean Acheson drew the ire of Republicans like Joseph McCarthy for the perception of not being tough enough against communism. Twenty years later, Henry Kissinger’s diplomacy with Russia came under fire from conservatives like Ronald Reagan.

But I would argue that criticism of Colin Powell’s policies at the State Department is without rival based on the breadth and scope of the right’s objections. To hear the neocons complain, Powell is wrong about everything.

The buildup towards war in Iraq obviously brought these divisions to the forefront. Powell publicly expressed doubts about the need for an invasion and advocated on behalf of U.N. weapons inspectors. Rumsfeld and Cheney did the opposite. In fact, Rumsfeld was fairly bold in designing the invasion plans to erase the credibility of the “Powell Doctrine,” which he saw as useless.

They also disagree about North Korea, where Powell has laid out a plan for negotiations and the neocons think Powell’s approach is a disaster. They’re also really going at it over Syria. Two weeks ago, as aggressive rhetoric from both sides seemed to be bringing the nations closer to a potential war, Powell sought to defuse the controversy and announced plans to travel to Syria this summer. Naturally, the neocons think the visit is outrageous and misguided.

And now the divisions within the administration are intensifying over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as Powell is working with the president to unfold the infamous “road map” towards peace.

While the Palestinians appear to be following the administration’s demands for reform, with the creation of a cabinet for Yassir Arafat, for example, the peace plan is nevertheless drawing fire from U.S. conservatives who had hoped for a far different approach.

Because Powell is working with the European Union and the U.N. on the road map, neocons like Newt Gingrich are complaining that the proposal is “a deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the president’s policies procedurally by ensuring that they will consistently be watered down and distorted.” Gingrich ultimately labeled the road map “a clear disaster for American diplomacy.”

Like minded members of Congress are echoing those sentiments. As the Washington Post reported this morning, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has denounced the road map as “a confluence of deluded thinking between European elites, elements within the State Department bureaucracy and a significant segment of the American intellectual community.”

So, if you’re keeping score, the neocons think Colin Powell and the State Department are wrong about Iraq (pre- and post-war), Syria, North Korea, and Israel. If the Bush administration finds Powell’s approach to foreign policy so inept, why did the president tap him to head the State Department? More importantly, why does Powell stay in an administration where he’s ignored and ostracized?