Posted on 05/26/2004 11:01:09 PM PDT by DentsRun
One of the ideological architects of the Iraq war has criticized the U.S.-led occupation of the country as "a grave error."
Richard Perle, until recently a powerful adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, described U.S. policy in post-war Iraq as a failure.
"I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error," said Perle, former chair of the influential Defence Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon.
With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately.
"We didn't have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately," he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30.
This public criticism of U.S. policy from one of the leading advocates of the war — and a firm political ally of U.S. President George W. Bush — indicates just how much Bush's political fortunes are being damaged by post-war chaos.
With polls indicating 64 per cent of Americans believe Bush has no clear plan for Iraq, the U.S. president is embarking on a series of weekly speeches to pitch his proposal to hand over sovereignty to an appointed interim Iraqi government on June 30. But that plan, contained in a United Nations Security Council resolution drafted by the United States and Britain, has led to confusion about who will have ultimate control over U.S.-led coalition forces.
The resolution leaves over-all military control in the hands of the United States, but British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted yesterday that such power would be transferred to the interim Iraqi government.
The interim government, Blair added, will even have the power to order foreign troops to leave the country — a power not mentioned in the resolution.
"After the 30th of June there will be the full transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi government. Therefore, the people who will decide whether the troops stay or not will be the Iraqi government," Blair told reportersat his monthly press conference.
The Iraqi interim government, Blair added, would have the power to veto military actions, such as the one U.S. soldiers launched recently against militants in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
"If there is a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government," he said. "And the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. Now that's what the transfer of sovereignty means."
Blair's description of the U.S.'s Falluja operation as a "political decision" — suggesting it was not a matter of military or security necessity — was also veiled criticism of an action that killed an estimated 600 Iraqis, and has been strongly denounced in a British foreign ministry memo as "heavy handed."
Blair made clear that the Iraqi interim government's power over coalition troops would be limited, insisting that British troops will not carry out orders they disagree with.
Still, his comments seemed at odds with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who insisted yesterday U.S. forces "will remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves."
Iraq's interim defence minister, Ali Allawi, told reporters in London he thought coalition forces would be gone within months.
"In terms of the timeline for the presence of multinational forces to help us establish security and stability, I think it would be a question of months rather than years," he said.
Blair's comments on the powers of the Iraqi interim government provided the kind of detail that France, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, noted is missing from the resolution tabled on Monday.
The resolution says the "unified command" of the multinational force in Iraq remains under U.S. control. It also authorizes coalition forces to "take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq."
Blair added that Britain's 7,500 soldiers in Iraq would leave once Iraqi security forces were able to ensure the country's stability.
"We stay until we get the job done, but obviously, the sooner the better we are able to get Iraqi security forces in charge of their own security, then the easier it is for us to leave," he said.
France, Russia, Spain and China signalled they wanted changes to the draft U.N. resolution.
French President Jacques Chirac called Bush to say Iraqis must see the sovereignty they get June 30 as "real," and Russia said it needed to see the composition of the interim government. But several Security Council members said they expected the resolution to be adopted with only minor changes.
"I do not expect any fight," said Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, the only Arab member of the council. "All of us are in a constructive mood. We want the transition to succeed."
Bush has made Iraq the central plank in his so-called war on terror. But a report from a leading think-tank yesterday suggests the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only accelerated recruitment for Al Qaeda.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates the extremist network now has 18,000 radical militants in its ranks and cells in more than 60 countries.
"Al Qaeda must be expected to keep trying to develop more promising plans for terrorist operations in North America and Europe — potentially involving weapons of mass destruction," institute director John Chipman told a news conference to launch the think-tank's annual survey of world affairs.
I saw Perle on FOX the other day and he said, in hindsight, we should've left Iraq after the defeat. I really do not understand that thinking. We cannot tear up a country and just leave it for the wolves. I think Mr. Perle has just gotten so much heat that he is not thinking clearly.
Perle was nothing more then an advisor. We've seen how often people like him become bitter when they realize that they aren't as important as they thought.
"With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately.
"We didn't have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately," he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30.
"
uh.. which iraqis? the statue falls and you say, okay, ITS ALL YOURS! you would have had civil war and infighting almost immediately with whatever was left of Saddam's army probably taking over.
It's nice to know The Toronto Star doesn't allow editorializing by its reporters.
"With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, "
I stopped reading here at this outright lie.
Sure, and then after we left, Saddam would have crawled out of his little spider hole and collected Uday and Quesay and been back in power so fast it would have made your head spin. What is WRONG with that man?
What do you make of this?
All of the suddenly earnest advice we are getting from - oh, please, go with me on this one - Russia and France - yeah, I know - is nothing more than ridiculous posturing that fails to conceal the fact that we're going to do more or less what they're talking about regardless of advice or condemnation and that we always were. Thanks for the advice, fellas. Thanks for all the help, too. Now please just shut up.
I think our real mistake in Iraq was ending the war and shifting to the occupation too soon. We left too many alive and loose who should have been killed or incarcerated.
"Saddam would have crawled out of his little spider hole and collected Uday and Quesay and been back in power so fast it would have made your head spin."
I'm sure the "Out of Iraq" crowd is glad that at least Saddam is still around. There's still a chance that we can "End the Occupation" and return the rightful rulers back to power.
(Well, except for Uday and Quesay.)
Of course the US could have left as soon as the mission was accomplished. But if you think there is great criticism of Bush now, you can not imagine the criticism he would be taking had toppled Saddam and then left the Iraqis with a stiff warning to keep their battles internal or we would be back.
And as the polls show, the majority of the Iraqi people were happy to have the US there keeping order after the end of major combat operations. The American people wobbled a bit when things got hot for a month or so recently. But I will be quite interested in seeing whether US opinion on the Battle of Iraq in the war on terror is as negative in a month or so IF relative calm remains?
I know there were reasons for every step we've taken but I wish that we had just divided up the country into 3 states (Kurd, Shia and Sunni) and just let them be about their business. Without the need to juggle these warring cats we could have gotten about Our business and opened a can o' whoopass on Syria or Iran by now!
We delivered an ass whoopin' to Syria and Iraq just through breaking up the Oil For Food smuggling conspiracy. Syria was getting 35% of its hard currency from smuggled Iraqi oil. They're broke right now.
Stabilizing Iraq should bring down the theocracy in Iran and the Baathist regime in Syria from their own internal accord.
If these statements are true, the Neocon philosophy of preemptive defensive internationalism has been set back 20 years. Richard Perle is a disgrace and/or a traitor, the Robert McNamara of his generation.
"Perle was nothing more than an advisor."
True, but a most-respected one. He was duped big time by Chalabi (if what we hear is true), and was a big promoter of what Chalabi and his guys were saying. I think maybe Perle is still in shock.
Are we going to see Richard Perle on 60 Minutes now?
A federation between the three factions would be possible, but then add in the distribution of oil revenues and the hostility gains another quarrel to keep it going. Perle and the other neocons have gotten the US into a tar pit that it is going to be hard to extricate ourselves from. Perle should be utilizing his brilliance(?)to find a solution instead of abandoning ship.
Perle's thinking is that he wants to be on the Sunday shows too! whine whine whine......I'll play along.....just invite me on the shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.