I've always found the Powell doctrine and mentality earily similar to what I know of McLellan's "doctrine" in the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, for The Reaper's sake
).
Esentially it can only be lauded if there was no inherent risk to inaction - if we held all the cards. We DID hold all the cards in 1991 - Hussein presented no direct threat to our homeland, and time was completely on OUR side. From the perspective of decreasing the threat of global Isamic Terrorism, however, the Powell doctrine becomes quite a crutch, as did McLellans mentality in fighting the Confederates.
Th Powell doctrined is no doubt favored by politicians who are more worried about a bloody nose on their reelection campaign then the security of the nation.
One could argue that a Powell doctrine mentality existed in France and England when they were unable or unwilling to call Hitler's bluffs in the 1930s - or among most of the League of Nations when Japan's attack on Manchuria was ignored. Sometimes bold is better.
- Just my humble (maybe not so humble) opinion.