Dick Cheney: from Gulf War architect to defender of constitutional conservatism

The Atlantic’s profile of Dick Cheney offers a nuanced exploration of how early experiences, historical crises, and personal discipline shaped one of the most consequential figures in modern U.S. politics. Cheney’s life demonstrates that political trajectories are rarely abrupt transformations; rather, they are the product of long-term patterns of thought, decision-making, and exposure to formative events.

Cheney’s early career highlights the interplay of opportunity and circumstance. Arriving in Washington in 1968, he navigated the Nixon administration at a time of national upheaval. The Vietnam War, Watergate, and the resignations or indictments of senior officials created openings that allowed a disciplined, untainted young staffer to rise quickly. Cheney’s early bond with Donald Rumsfeld provided a mentorship that would inform decades of governance, emphasising loyalty, strategic thinking, and the careful accumulation of institutional knowledge.

Ideologically, Cheney was shaped by a robust belief in American capability and power. Unlike contemporaries such as Henry Kissinger, who stressed the limits of U.S. influence, Cheney embraced a proactive approach to global leadership, aligning with Ronald Reagan’s faith in assertive policies. This worldview guided his actions in Congress, as well as in the executive branch, culminating in his pivotal role in organising the Gulf War. His experience during the post-1991 period in Iraq reinforced his conviction that threats like Saddam Hussein would not resolve themselves and required active, sometimes preemptive, intervention.

Cheney’s tenure in government demonstrates a consistent pattern: meticulous preparation, attention to detail, and an ingrained sense of responsibility. The Atlantic emphasises that accusations of deception during the Iraq War, particularly regarding weapons of mass destruction, stemmed less from political cynicism than from a deeply held conviction that the United States could not afford complacency. His approach reflected lessons learned from past underestimation of threats, including al-Qaeda, and a desire to prevent repeated strategic failures.

Socially, Cheney’s conservatism was selective and pragmatic. He maintained traditional positions when electorally necessary but largely ignored socially reactionary issues when unbound by local political pressures. This separation of constitutional and policy conservatism from partisan orthodoxy later enabled Cheney and his allies to act as principled opponents to Donald Trump’s reinterpretation of executive authority. Cheney’s vigilance for constitutional norms, particularly regarding the separation of powers, represents a throughline connecting his early career to his final years.

Trump’s presidency underscored the contrast between Cheney’s worldview and the new Republican ethos. Where Cheney valued disciplined engagement, global leadership, and legal constraints, Trump embraced protectionism, cultural reactionism, and executive aggrandisement. Cheney’s final years, therefore, were marked not by retreat but by the defence of the principles he had long embodied, highlighting the enduring relevance of experience-informed, principled governance.

In sum, The Atlantic presents Cheney as a figure whose life encapsulates both the strengths and limits of American power. His trajectory illustrates how formative experiences—personal, institutional, and historical—inform a lifelong approach to governance, emphasising prudence, vigilance, and constitutional responsibility. Cheney’s legacy is thus a testament to the ways early career lessons and enduring philosophy can shape the exercise of authority in moments of national crisis.

By Vugar Khalilov