MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Perle Tries to Avoid Blame on Iraq, Says "I Don't Believe I Was Wrong"

Appearing recently on a BBC show, Richard Perle said, "I don't believe I was wrong [about the invasion of Iraq]. Let me be very clear about that. What I think happened is that a successful invasion was turned into an unsuccessful occupation. I didn’t favor the occupation strategy. I think the occupation was a mistake."

This is becoming an increasingly common way for the most fervent supporters of the invasion to sidestep blame, but it is fundamentally in error. They cannot separate the invasion from the occupation. If they had the foresight one hopes the advocates of something as serious as war would have had, they would have realized that no invasion comes easy. That's particularly true with Iraq. A country with no history of a civil society and no familiarity with self-rule wasn't going to turn into a functioning democracy in a matter of months. The plan to invade, depose Saddam, and then hand the country over to Ahmad Chalabi or whomever in six months was, to any serious observer, a obvious fallacy. An American occupation was going to be necessary.

But let's give Perle the benefit of the doubt. If you look closely at his words, he doesn't say that he opposed the occupation. He says he opposed the occupation strategy. So he is telling us that he knew an occupation would be necessary, but didn't like the way Bush and Co. ran the one that occurred.

This too is nonsense.

First, because Perle and the neocons who urged on war never advocated an occupation strategy. They pushed for war and were silent on the topic of aftereffects. And second, because Perle actually did endorse the strategy employed by Paul Bremer, and he insisted well after the invasion that it was working. According to Think Progress, Perle said in April 2004 that, "We're making so much progress with most Iraqis that those who feel threatened by the progress are more devoted and more energetic than ever to try to destroy the progress we’re making."

And Perle's never going to live some of his statements down, regardless of the dissembling he offers now. In July 2002 he told PBS, "Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will." Couldn't have been more wrong. And in May 2003, mere weeks after the invasion, Perle wrote an op-ed so misguided, so willfully naive, and so arrogant that it makes one wonder why he is still given the opportunity to spread his views. It was titled "Relax, Celebrate Victory."

Comments

Perle is a Zionist who knew what he was doing. Don't be fooled.

Posted by: Peter on 11/25/07 at 12:17 PM Respond

Perle has been wrong on foreign policy for over 25 years. What's amazing is that the neo-con establishment keeps bringing him back. This is an example of a foreign policy intellectual? Nad yet perhaps he's merely a front-man for the larger neo-con job that has essentially take over; much like the drooling manequin who is President, the attention is not focused on what is really going on. Woe to us!

Posted by: Kyle on 11/25/07 at 5:15 PM Respond

Since his days with Senator Henry Jackson, Perle has pushed for the US armed forces to do missions for the Israeli government. He and his fellow believers struck gold with the empty head of George Bush but never served in the US or Israeli armed forces.

Posted by: charles mccamey on 11/26/07 at 2:53 PM Respond

Why aren't these guys in the docket at the Hague? One million Iraq dead certainloy qualifies as genocide. History will group Bush and company with Hitler and company.

Posted by: George M Woods on 11/26/07 at 8:54 PM Respond

I think you skipped an important part of this hard talk interview: His agressive attitude towards Iran.
The man seems to have learned nothing

Posted by: Fesje vd Wal-Kijlstra on 11/26/07 at 10:58 PM Respond

Perle, Abrams and their ilk, so ruefully engaged in nation building from a theoretical perspective that has been adopted by this government as a new colonial annexation tool for writing upon a blank slate their intent for those bombed into the stone age a Tabla Rosa to cognitively help the populace like their plight as servants to the new order.

Posted by: williek on 11/26/07 at 11:25 PM Respond

Let us cut to the chase. The neocons believe that what foreign policy is good for Israel, is good for America. The neocons are old line Democrats(pre 1964, they are not old line Republicans who opposed the Iraq adventure.

Posted by: Anna on 11/27/07 at 7:25 AM Respond

NeoCon is an increasingly less helpful term. Certainly NeoCons endorsed the Bush insanity but Peter's and Anna's points should be taken seriously. It's intellectually lazy if not dishonest to assume they're Republicans. Perle, Abrams, and Wolfowitz belong in a unique category with Lieberman, Lantos, Feinstein - public figures whose uncritical and unwavering loyalty to Israel shapes their advocacy of U.S. policy.

Posted by: Larry McD on 11/27/07 at 8:45 AM Respond

So much for 'perles of wisdom'... :)

Posted by: Christopher Flynn on 11/27/07 at 9:41 AM Respond

eyvallah canim

Posted by: Redtube on 05/16/08 at 10:45 PM Respond