In late , as the U. In a widely noted interview with Vanity Fair that year, Perle argued that the war in Iraq had turned out to be a mistake. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention?
Well, maybe we could have. I do argue that the execution should have been better. In fact, I argued in late that we needed more troops and a proper counterinsurgency policy. Also in seeming opposition to other neoconservatives, Perle gave an equivocal reaction to the controversial decision by President George W.
While most neoconservatives were supportive of the surge plan, even eager for a larger commitment than 20, additional troops proposed, Perle expressed doubt that sending more troops was the answer. I don't know if we can. It will depend significantly on the command in the country. Perle later claimed that his remarks about the invasion had been taken out of context, insisting that he had actually meant to criticize the U.
We sent thousands of Americans over there to run a country they knew nothing about. We believed the intelligence that was available at the time that the CIA and other intelligence organizations.
He told the National Review in July "Chalabi is far and away the most competent and the most capable of salvaging this situation. I think he's got the best chance. It would be foolish if we expressed a preference for somebody less competent, which we've done before.
Perle's pessimism on Iraq stood in stark contrast to his trademark hard-nosed militarism, which has been a staple of his rhetoric for more than two decades. Reflecting core aspects of what many regard as the neoconservative worldview, Perle's discourse typically reflects a combination of warrior worship, existential conflict, and extreme moral righteousness. Bush's 'thinkers' is Richard Perle. Given that Iraq turned into a debacle that the United States is having trouble escaping, it is hardly surprising that Perle is denying his role now.
If Bush had staffed his administration with a group of people selected by Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker, which might well have happened, then it could have been different, because they would not have carried into the ideas that the people who wound up in important positions brought to it. The bottom line is simple: Richard Perle is lying. The real cause for concern is that there are hardly any consequences for the critical role that Perle and the neoconservatives played for their pivotal role in causing one of the great foreign policy disasters in American history.
If somebody can help engineer a foolish war and remain a respected Washington insider — as is the case with Perle — what harm is likely to befall them if they lie about it later?
Perle and his neoconservative buddies helped develop and sell a policy that has left over 4, U. Although his absurd claims have been promptly and properly challenged , does anyone seriously think he will pay a larger price? The National Interest was all-too-willing to publish his rewriting of the historical record, and no doubt prestigious organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will be happy to give him a platform at future meetings.
As Frank Rich and others have figured out, we are in trouble today because we have allowed a culture of corruption and dishonesty to permeate our institutions and pollute our public discourse.
Until that changes — until our public institutions contain a lot more truth-tellers like Gene Kranz and fewer liars like Richard Perle — we are not going to know where we stand, where we are headed, or whom to trust. Stephen M. Foreign Policy, Politics. Shusha was the key to the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
He no doubt raised lots of money for the institution. When Perle and the neocons were riding high in George W. Her unhappiness with him apparently dates at least from when the Wall Street Journal reported that he was actively exploring investing in oil-related projects in Kurdistan. Perle, who never registered as a foreign agent, later reported his findings to Cheney, according to the documents.
His departure, if that indeed is what it is, follows those of his long-time collaborators at the Institute. Or maybe Perle just decided it was time to retire to his villa in France and spend the rest of his days sipping Bordeaux. Although there is something satisfying to imagine the best he can do these days is hang out with the likes of Frank Gaffney. We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings.
In a press conference held on March 25, to promote the book, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. People like that worry me. One unusual but in-character for him habit of Perle's is his demands for payment for press inteviews [23]. He then joined pro-Vietnam War Senator henry Scoop Jackson's staff and made his reputation as one of the youngest of the defense intellectuals. Like Jackson, Perle made pro-Israeli poliy an axiom of his discourse.
Perle has become well-known for his aggressive mouth on TV talk shows, contradicting the flaccidity of his physical demeanor. London: Pluto Press. ISBN One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much. Categories : Politics U. Navigation menu Personal tools Log in. Namespaces Page Discussion.
0コメント