Book Review: Rise of the Vulcans

James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans, a journalistic history of the careers of the major players in George W. Bush’s wartime cabinet, is an indispensable resource for anyone concerned with understanding recent US foreign policy. Most of the big names are covered, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powel, Richard Armitage, Condoleeza Rice, and others.

Mann’s account is terse, evenhanded, and nuanced. It portrays its subjects with unerring insight and balance. Donald Rumsfeld is shown as having evolved from a Vietnam dove into a fairly consistent hawk; Richard Armitage is described as a relatively nonideological moderate; Colin Powell, while moderate on social issues, is seen to have been quite conservative and aggressive on foreign policy issues.

Along the way, Mann reveals a variety of personal and ideological alliances and schisms within the inner sanctum of the Bush Administration. There was, as has often been the case in conservative administrations, a gap between realists and neoconservatives.

Just as pertinent, however, are the personal characteristics and relationships of the Bush advisers. For example, the alliance between major Republican insider Rumsfeld and long-time lieutenant Cheney is shown to have been a decisive factor in drawing together, over the course of several administrations since that of Richard Nixon, the bellicose elements that would to a great extent define the Bush Presidency.

Rumsfeld is portrayed as a combative personality not afraid, even as a relatively young man, to butt heads with eminences such as Kissenger, while Cheney is depicted as a discreet and effective bureaucratic manipulator. Arrayed, one could say, against the Cheney / Rumsfeld axis was that of Powell / Armitage, both career soldiers with very narrow conceptions of the proper use and deployment of American military power.

Powell was clipped and professional in most of his dealings, politely voicing disagreements with his colleagues while ultimately remaining loyal to whichever president he served under. Armitage was something of a romantic, willing to take risks for his cause. Condoleeza Rice was a cool and professional presence, positioning herself carefully between warring factions.

Thus, some of the major divisions within the Bush Administration are interpreted as personal differences and bureaucratic power struggles as much as differences of opinion. Mann’s depiction of the intersection of the personal and the political, of the influence of daily human interaction on bureaucratic wrangling and policy formation, is perhaps one of his most important contributions. His account shows just how deeply political viewpoints are bound up with character and perception, and how personality conflicts can shape weighty affairs of state.

There are only two minor criticisms that might be lodged against Mann’s history. One is that, while the cabinet members are treated with great detail, the man they serve is all but absent. We get at most a few glimpses of George W. Bush, and what we do see lacks some of the work's characteristic nuance.

Most of this limited portrayal seems to lend credence to popular stereotypes of Bush as an intellectual lightweight and spoiled socialite ruled by powerful personalities, particularly eminence grise Richard Cheney. Perhaps such a portrayal is perfectly accurate, but we simply do not see enough of the President to be able to tell.

Moreover, the reader is missing information about someone who must, even if the worst rumors about the President are true, play some sort of crucial role in the political and personal differences within his Cabinet. Is it appropriate to discuss Cabinet members without discussing the President they serve?

The second issue is somewhat larger in import. From time to time a curious tension seems to arise among Bush's Vulcans, or even within individual personalities, between, on the one hand, an evangelical endorsement of democracy that employs naked force as its means, and on the other, a willingness to support dictatorships whenever expedient. One might also meaningfully speak of a tension between the desire to spread democracy and the nakedly geopolitical goal of permanently maintaining American military hegemony, two ends that may not be compatible.

The tension between these policies is often addressed, but never satisfactorily explained. It seems a crucial point for understanding the motivations behind the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

The original justification for the war in Iraq was, of course, to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. When it became evident that Hussein lacked any such weapons, the chief rationale was changed to the desirability of creating a democracy in Iraq.

Which of these goals is more important to neoconservatives? Were they always both equally important? Was there a genuine shift in rationale within the Administration, or merely an expedient one?

One final issue might be raised. Though the rise and influence of neo-conservatism is a constant theme throughout this book, we never really get a full grasp of the intellectual debate between neoconservatism and other conservative philosophies.

We get some idea of the experiences that lead its advocates down the neoconservative path, but not on the nature or evolution of the ideas themselves or the debates they spawned. This, however, is likely a task better suited to intellectual history.