Ex-war advocate Perle calls invasion of Iraq a mistake
By Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Richard Perle, the former Pentagon adviser regarded as the intellectual godfather of the Iraq war, said he now believes he should not have backed the U.S.-led invasion and he holds President Bush responsible for failing to make timely decisions to stem the rising violence.

Perle, a leading neoconservative thinker who chaired the Pentagon's defense advisory board for the first three years of the Bush administration, said in an interview to appear in January's issue of Vanity Fair that the United States might have been able to rid Saddam Hussein of his capabilities to build unconventional weapons ``by means other than a direct military intervention.''

Perle's about-face is the latest in a series of recriminations on the war effort by leading neoconservatives, many of whom blame the administration's management of the postwar stabilization effort for Iraq's spiraling violence.

But Perle's highly visible role in advocating an invasion after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- and his close relationship with the war's top architects, particularly Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, and Douglas Feith, the former Pentagon policy chief -- makes his reversal particularly noteworthy.

In the Vanity Fair excerpts released by the magazine Friday, Perle said he did not anticipate the ``depravity'' currently under way in Iraq, and that he finds the levels of violence horrifying. He acknowledged that ``huge mistakes'' were made in the management of the war effort, and blamed disloyalty among top Bush administration officials for the failure to get the policy correct.

``The decisions did not get made that should have been,'' he said. ``At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible. I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.''

Although the excerpts do not show whom Perle blames for disloyalty or mismanagement, he appears to lay the blame at the feet of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the military leaders who put together the war plan.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15929013.htm

Ex-war advocate Perle calls invasion of Iraq a mistake
By Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times


Perle, a leading neoconservative thinker who chaired the Pentagon's defense advisory board for the first three years of the Bush administration, said in an interview to appear in January's issue of Vanity Fair that the United States might have been able to rid Saddam Hussein of his capabilities to build unconventional weapons ``by means other than a direct military intervention.'

Good, now he can share with us all the correct methods of dealing with North Korea and Iran.

I think everyone who didn't help to plan the war in Iraq thinks it was a mistake.

I think everyone who didn't help to plan the war in Iraq thinks it was a mistake.

Wip, I am not sure that much planning occurred past the getting to Baghdad stage.

I think everyone who didn't help to plan the war in Iraq thinks it was a mistake.You might be missing the point.

Perle did plan the war.

You might be missing the point.

Perle did plan the war.

Oh I know - he's one of the exceptions.

Wip, I am not sure that much planning occurred past the getting to Baghdad stage.

Apparently (and unfortunately) not.

Okay, someone help me out here 'cause I don't get it. He was for the war, now he is against the war. He is now against the war because there was betrayal within the party towards the war efforts which caused failure.

I HATE Bush...but how is this fair towards Bush or his party? Hindsight is 20/20. How does this help anything?

What am I missing here?

All these dudes on $200,00 a year drew the plans up for attackink Saddam, and made one fatal mistake, 'the get out clause'.

blamed disloyalty among top Bush administration officials for the failure to get the policy correct.bwahahhaaa. yeah one of the most indoctrinating regimes in american history and he blames 'disloyalty'.

This is the same scum fuck who canceled Iraqi led elections months after the invasion and then instituted neo-liberal bullshit policies to turn iraq into a 'free market' which did not call for companies to hire Iraqis, but outsource jobs in a country with 75% + unemployment.

Hes a misirable fucking failure and hes trying to pass the buck to the rest of the failures.

no honor among thieves,

Hes a misirable fucking failure and hes trying to pass the buck to the rest of the failures.

I have to agree. It's almost like he's jumping on the "it was a mistake" bandwagon so that he toss the blame at others. He's just as guilty as everyone else.

Okay, someone help me out here 'cause I don't get it. He was for the war, now he is against the war. He is now against the war because there was betrayal within the party towards the war efforts which caused failure.



It's just a flip-flop. He is intelligent enough to recognize failure, and he doesn't wish to be associated with it. It's CYA time.

Same old story. The US is quite good at winning wars, but very bad at occupying and controlling countries afterwards.

Okay, someone help me out here 'cause I don't get it. He was for the war, now he is against the war. He is now against the war because there was betrayal within the party towards the war efforts which caused failure.It's far more complicated than simply being for the war or against the war. There are myriad opinions when it comes to the war in Iraq, varying in factors such as the decision to go to war, how the war is being fought, when to withdraw, what our objectives should be, etc. A person's opinions should be taken for what they are and not placed into a false dichotomy of being one or the other.

Thanks Imagineer and Jester!

Y'all might want to spend a little time with Cobra II, considered to be an exceptional review of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The authors found that those who questioned the stated plans (or lack thereof) of the invasion AND the post-invasion outcome were either ignored or threatened with being removed from command. Ultimately, every decision regarding Iraq was made by Rumsfeld (a guy who had absolutely no personal knowledge of war and how to wage it). And, as we now know, every one of those decisions was WRONG.

The Bush administration's two major strategic miscalculations are by now familiar: first, a broad-based intelligence failure regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the viability of its economic infrastructure and the reception Iraqis would give invading U.S. forces; and second, underestimating the challenge of stabilizing post-invasion Iraq.

Gordon and Trainor -- respectively a New York Times reporter and a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, and collectively the authors of a widely hailed 1995 book on Operation Desert Storm, The Generals' War -- go beyond these issues to focus on logical flaws in prewar planning that should have raised eyebrows among senior U.S. officials. For example, they report that when the CIA identified nearly 950 suspected WMD sites, military planners argued for additional troops to secure them lest the terrorists purportedly in league with Saddam Hussein spirit the WMD away during the chaos of war, thereby producing the very outcome the administration was trying to avoid. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was determined to attack with a "lean force."

The book's core, however, centers not on Beltway deliberations but on the dash to Baghdad by the Army and the Marines.The authors do a fine job making one of the most lop-sided campaigns in memory interesting, but the surprises that the Americans encounter turn out to be even more compelling. Senior U.S. field commanders soon realize that their principal enemy is not the Iraqi army but irregular forces -- many of them foreigners -- employing guerrilla tactics. These are portents of the full-blown insurgency to come, but no one back in Washington proves capable of connecting the dots.

While U.S. soldiers and Marines shifted their focus on the fly, the Bush administration failed to recast its strategy for the postwar endgame. Consequently, once American forces seized Baghdad, U.S. troop deployments were curtailed and units were instructed to prepare for a rapid drawdown -- even while the Iraqi police and military forces that the administration expected to preserve order were being disbanded.

Far from a well coordinated strategy, Cobra II paints a portrait of a war plan almost entirely driven by twin ideological beliefs, the first being that a military victory could be won by a small agile army of fewer than 100,000 men and the second that their would be no need for a long term American presence. The reason for the last belief, so tragically mistaken in retrospect, was the idea that the Iraqis would quickly and peacefully form a civil society and, to the degree it was needed the international community would pick up the slack. The holders of these two beliefs? Vice President Dick Cheney and Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, to whom President Bush gave full authority to run the war as they saw fit. As this work demonstrates with a shocking degree of detail, all those who opposed this world view found themselves sidelined in the lead up and the execution of the war.

Gordon and Trainor offer examples such as the State Department and Sec. Powell who warned the President, the VP, and the Sec. Def of the near certainty of a break down of civil society following the conflict. They were ignored. Military officers with experience in Bosnia and Haiti made raised similar warnings. They too were ignored. Indeed, when military commanders on the ground in the race for Baghdad began to understand that the US faced a well planned and coordinated gorilla insurgency and requested the manpower and time to quell it, they were threatened with being pulled from command. --Amazon.com

I have looked at this military action from many angles and I cannot come up with the answer to why Bush has held on to, and shielded, Rumsfeld the way he has.
The situation in Iraq requires a strategist with far greater capabilities than Rumsfeld seems to possess.

Y'all might want to spend a little time with Cobra II, considered to be an exceptional review of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Good post Marz.

Same old story. The US is quite good at winning wars, but very bad at occupying and controlling countries afterwards.Nah, we just blew this one. I think Japan and Germany were handled pretty well.

....and he holds President Bush responsible for failing to make timely decisions to stem the rising violence.
-or-
..... and blamed disloyalty among top Bush administration officials for the failure to get the policy correct.If the Pres didn't make timely decisions perhaps there should have been a little more disloyalty.

But to agree with what was said earlier, it sounds like everyone's fault except Richard Perle's.

I have looked at this military action from many angles and I cannot come up with the answer to why Bush has held on to, and shielded, Rumsfeld the way he has.
The situation in Iraq requires a strategist with far greater capabilities than Rumsfeld seems to possess.

I've often wondered that myself.

That said NRO have a responses from all those involved in the VF article. For a more complete picture of what they actually said verses the press release issued by VF it can be seen at

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgxYzUzYmRlNjhmNzMyNjI2MDM4YmRjNTFhODA4MGQ=

Nah, we just blew this one. I think Japan and Germany were handled pretty well.
Can never understand why US Troops are still in these 2 countrys, must cost a fortune to keep them there, South Korea also.

Nah, we just blew this one. I think Japan and Germany were handled pretty well.
"Pretty well" eh? Those two countries, as well as South Korea, have great economies, large or growing population, and have become an asset with their friendship. It's more than just a "pretty well" handling of the situation!
Can never understand why US Troops are still in these 2 countrys, must cost a fortune to keep them there, South Korea also.
SK and Japan: China, and North Korea have certain policies that conflict with our interests.

Germany: it provides a closer stepping stone to the Middle East than would be seen in in the US.

I dont think China is a threat to the US anymore, if it ever was.
As for NK, you have to rule out military intervention for the foreseeable future, so why be there.
The Pentagon needs to be completly re-structured for the needs of America in the next 50 years, everything theyve done since 1945 needs to be trashed,
theres a new game in town.

I dont think China is a threat to the US anymore, if it ever was.
I never used the term "threat" to the US, as I would bet my life China and the US won't go to war for the near future. North Korea still remains a possibility, however unlikely, not to mention we made pledges to protect South Korea.
The Pentagon needs to be completly re-structured for the needs of America in the next 50 years, everything theyve done since 1945 needs to be trashed,
theres a new game in town.
More than the Pentagon needs to be reformed, as it stands now. Too much bureaucracy and special interests are hurting our status as a nation.

The US pledge to protect SK dosent mean you need Jester and his comrades based on the other side of the planet.
As for the Pentagon, I think it does need reformed, theres too many suits in it making careers out of either sending young men to war, in the wrong place or doing fuck all.

"Pretty well" eh? Those two countries, as well as South Korea, have great economies, large or growing population, and have become an asset with their friendship. It's more than just a "pretty well" handling of the situation!
So their economies are good because you are there and "handled" it so well?

So their economies are good because you are there and "handled" it so well?
Yes, because everyone knows the USSR or the PRC would have created an even better enviroment where Germany and Japan could flower. Please. Capitalism and republicanism being brought to those nations, by the US (with help of course), are the reason for the prosperity of those three nations mentioned. Their histories would be vastly different without the existence of the USA.

You might be missing the point.

Perle did plan the war.

If he did (which he didn't but anyway) - then he must be a fantastic planner. The actual war to overthrow Saddam was incredibly executed. Saddam was overthrown and the country occupied with a few weeks. Compare that to Iraq being at war with Iran for 8 years! - The soviet experience in Afghanistan. You have to go back to Hitlers invasion of France to see such an expert military execution.

The problem was not a failing of the war, it was a failing of the peace. In the 3 years since the invasion we have made just about every mistake possible.

If he did (which he didn't but anyway) - then he must be a fantastic planner.A poor choice of words on my part. Windwip's comment caused me to think he believed Perle was not involved in the planning of the war. Of course Perle had nothing to do with planning the actual invasion per se, but he was instrumental in laying the intellectual justification for the war (such as it was) and for years he agitated in favor of it.
The problem was not a failing of the war, it was a failing of the peace. In the 3 years since the invasion we have made just about every mistake possible.It is difficult to occupy a country whose people have not been defeated.

Yes, because everyone knows the USSR or the PRC would have created an even better enviroment where Germany and Japan could flower. Please. Capitalism and republicanism being brought to those nations, by the US (with help of course), are the reason for the prosperity of those three nations mentioned. Their histories would be vastly different without the existence of the USA.
An interesting belief. I wonder what the Germans and Japanese would think about that.

An interesting belief. I wonder what the Germans and Japanese would think about that.
It is not a belief, it is self-evident fact. Any imbecile who thinks that Germany, Japan, South Korea, or even Italy would be as prosperous as they are now without the US, has a non-functioning brain.

It is not a belief, it is self-evident fact. Any imbecile who thinks that Germany, Japan, South Korea, or even Italy would be as prosperous as they are now without the US, has a non-functioning brain.
Self evident fact is an interesting word choice. So are imbecile and non-functioning brain.

Self evident fact is an interesting word choice. So are imbecile and non-functioning brain.
Yes, yes they are! I've decided to be an asshole tonight.

fuckfuckfuck.

Yes, yes they are! I've decided to be an asshole tonight.

fuckfuckfuck.
Yeah I can see that... :D

Yes, yes they are! I've decided to be an asshole tonight. just tonight?

just tonight?
We'll just have to see how this new evening goes. Although do count on me to take the opposite view of FT to be an annoyance, since you agree with him on many issues I'm sure you would consider disagreement with him an affront and therefore being an "asshole."

No, you're just acting like a royal fuck-wit in the Iraq thread. genocide.

....you're just acting like a royal fuck-wit...

He's not acting.

He's not acting.
Was that supposed to be funny? Because since you don't know me, you can't possibly know that.