Neoconservatives decry execution of Iraq war

CNN ^ | 4 November 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'" he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Asked about the article, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "We appreciate the Monday-morning quarterbacking, but the president has a plan to succeed in Iraq, and we are going forward with it."

Other prominent conservatives criticized the administration's conduct of the war in the article, including Kenneth Adelman, who also served on the Defense Policy Board that informally advised President Bush. Adelman said he was "crushed" by the performance of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Adelman also said that neoconservatism, "the idea of using our power for moral good in the world," has been discredited with the public. After Iraq, he told Vanity Fair, "it's not going to sell."

[jeltz25]

The President is a big boy. You can't just blame the neocons and say they tricked Bush or put him under their spell. Bush said many of the same things about Iraqis and democracy that they did, and he's still saying it. He gave a speech at the AEI before the war about Iraqis are just as capable of democracy and behaving like westerners as Americans or Europeans and it's racist to say otherwise. Cheney talked about the flowers and candy and the death throes two years ago. The neocons and Bush were all in this together.

[dforest]

There is some news out ther somewhere that this ain't so true

[jeltz25]

True, but as commander in chief, if Bush recognizes that perhaps the miltary's execution is lacking or mistaken, it's his job to fix that.

The history of warfare is filled with generals and commanders being relieved and changed.

If Bush is content to set some overall strategy, and just sit back and let the miltary do whatever they want and not question them or get involved if he sees things aren't going as planned, then he's not doing his job.

Also, i think you confuse Hitler's strategy and tactics. A lot of his tactics were tied to his overall political strategic goals. But it was also the failure of his generals and others to stand up to him and question his tactics. If a few generals had sttod up and spoke out publicly or gotten a group together to challenge Hitler or refused to carry out what they knew to be wrong tactics, things might hae been different.


You don't think Bush and the WH have interfered in any miltary matters? What about ordering the marines to satnd down in Fallujah I? What about ordering the Army to call of the siege of the Mahdi Army in Najaf and let Sadr and all his thugs escape with all their weapons intact? What about apparently setting rules of engagement that leave Iran and Syria free to meddle in Iraq with no fear of reprisal? There have been plenty of instances where Bush and the WH have interfered with the miltary

My main point was that having a situation where a country just blindly follows one guy and doesn't question either his startegy opr tactics often leads to disaster.

In Vietnam, when Westmoreland was set home and Creighton Abrams was brought in, he chaged tactics and was more successful. Perhaps Abizaid and/or Casey have been making tactical errors. Perhaps a different general might be more effective or have better ideas on what to do. I haven't done enough research to reach a firm conclusion on that but I do think those are questions that need to be asked and asking them isn't treasonous or cutting and running.

[jeltz25]

I also want to make clear that I'm not blaming Bush personally for all of this.

I think there's a bunch of stuff that happens that he isn't really involved in

But as President, I do think he needs to ask questions:

Is the State Dept really serving our interests as best as possible?

Is the CIA on my side or are they out to get me and do they have a fundamentally different worldview when it comes to terrorism and Jihad?

Was letting the Mahdi Army off the hook in Najaf the right call?

Was letting Saddam and his top guys live and extending this trial for 3 years the right move?

Are there enough troops to carry out the strategy I set?

Have we dealt with Iran and Syria in the right manner?

Is the al--Maliki govt reliable? or are they in Tehran's pocket?

Is Maliki on my side?

Was an immediate transition to democracy the right approach?

Did we underestimate the depth of sunni-shiite violence and hatreds and have we adapted to it effectively?

Asking these and other questions will only help us achieve what I think all of us on Fr want toachieve, and achieve it in the best way possible

[Chgogal]

That being said I was and am definitely still in support of the invasion of Afghanistan and the take down of the Taliban and I think the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was absolutely necessary in the WOT.

What I as a Conservative have a problem with is our long-term objective in both countries. It is not clear to me what that objective is and “Nation Building”, while theoretically a noble cause, is not practical in all cases as history has proven again and again. As George Washington said in is farewell address, “Beware of Foreign Entanglements’. There is a fine line between acting in our national interests and becoming entangled and bogged down in the affairs of other nations.

I agree with you completely. What I would like to see is an election in Iraq defining our role in Iraq. The Iraqis would vote Yeah or Nay for our Troops to remain there. If Nay, fine we leave ASAP. The vote Yeah would include parameters such as full support of the Iraqis. The Iraqis' responsibilities would include at minimum: (1) not attacking each other, (2) not attacking any of the Coalition Forces, (3) finding a way to mitigate corruption in government and (4) other. If the above contract between the Iraq Government/people is broken the US/Coalition Forces would depart Iraq ASAP. Period.

[OldFriend]

I criticize the President for one decision, and one ONLY. The decision to sign CFR.

I am no military expert and I don't play one on FR either.

[verity]

"I am no military expert and I don't play one on FR either"

Unfortunately, too many do. ;-)

[festus]

Yah in that one we just killed off the enemy unlike this one where we mainly seem interested in making them like us and not blowing them up to much.

[durasell]

Yah in that one we just killed off the enemy unlike this one where we mainly seem interested in making them like us and not blowing them up to much.






In WWII the enemies were a little more cooperative after their governments fell.

[festus]

IMHO as long as mecca stands the enemy government still stands.

[durasell]

We're not at war with Saudi Arabia. The last time I checked they were allies and major trading partners. And for the record, we're not at war with other major muslim countries outside of the middle east, indonesia, malaysia, brunei, etc.

[OldFriend]

Yes, many of our posters and our right wing talk show hosts think they are military experts and don't hesitate to impart their superior knowledge to the rest of us at the expense of the men on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[festus]

You are correct. Which is my point we still haven't identified the enemy.

[durasell]

Which is my point we still haven't identified the enemy.






The enemy is a violent crackpot idea that resides in the brains of those open to violent crackpot ideas.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You asked a series of questions, and even though the questions are rhetorical, and I can't speak for the President, but here's my take:

"Is the State Dept really serving our interests as best as possible?"

The State Dept. is full of Clinton appointees who have used every opportunity to undermine the Administration.

"Is the CIA on my side or are they out to get me and do they have a fundamentally different worldview when it comes to terrorism and Jihad?"

The CIA--when it isn't being glaringly incompetent executing its charter--is using every opportunity to undermine the Administration. And yes, they have a world-view, which is predicated on the CIA maintaining its independence, influence, and bureaucratic clout.

"Was letting the Mahdi Army off the hook in Najaf the right call?"

Yes, it was a bad call--Sadr and his men should have blown to the winds.

Was letting Saddam and his top guys live and extending this trial for 3 years the right move?

Saddam should have been squeezed dry for information, then thrown into a basement room filled with the wives of his (now-deceased) political opponents.

"Are there enough troops to carry out the strategy I set?"

Can't speak to manpower levels--if the Generals on the ground need more men, then they should say so.

"Have we dealt with Iran and Syria in the right manner?"

Can't speak to Iran and Syria--a great deal is going on that we--the public--can't possibly know.

"Is the al--Maliki govt reliable? or are they in Tehran's pocket?"

The jury's still out on Maliki and his government--but a good general rule is that adherents of Islam can never be trusted, under any circumstances. Trust their instinct for self-preservation, and remember that the Iranians are most emphatically not Arabs. The Iraqis, Shia and Sunni alike, loathe the Persians even more than they loathe one another.

"Is Maliki on my side?"

See above.

"Was an immediate transition to democracy the right approach?"

Yes, the rapid transition to an electoral political model was the right thing to do. For one thing, the American public would not abide the establishment of a 'transitional' authoritarian government. 'Transitional' governments of that type have a way of becoming permanent fixtures.

"Did we underestimate the depth of sunni-shiite violence and hatreds and have we adapted to it effectively?"

Yes, we underestimated the animosity between Shia and Sunni--who could fully know the hatred these two groups feel for each other? Even the Irish at their fratricidal worst never displayed this kind of socio-suicidal eagerness. But yes, we have been dealing with it. An Army buddy of mine is a retired Sergeant Major with enormous experience in the Middle East, Iraq particularly. According to him, we're working wonders, but it's going to take time.

But here's the rub: it is ultimately Iraqis themselves need to pull this off. We can take them to the well--even build the well--but we can't make them drink.

That's my take on things, anyway.

[jeltz25]

you don't mind his immigration policies, his domestic spending that's the largest since LBJ"s Great Society(even Conservative groups like Heritage and AEI, and the GOP in the House are concerned over spending), the whole Harriet Miers thing, his actions on Iran's nuclear program?

[OldFriend]

I am not one of those who hate that the issue of education for the poorest children has been addressed. I suppose that since I was able to afford private school for my children I ought not care about the horrific quality of teaching in the inner cities. Just too too liberal of me I guess that I am concerned.

And the consequence of the RX program for seniors that had the pharmaceutical companies lowering their prices and Walmart offerin $4 RX and Walgreen following suit. Tell you, I just can't stand that happening since I don't take any meds and if I did I could easily afford to pay full price.

I know nothing about Harriet Meiers so I'd not be qualified to speak on her qualifications.

As for the Dubai Ports Deal which you left out of your litany.....I guess I'm not overly thrilled with the union thugs running the docks now, many of which could never pass the background security check. But what do I know, not being a dock worker.

And sorry to say, I am not one of those who think knocking on doors, rounding up millions of people who are suspected of being here illegally, incarcerating them, tending to their children, making sure they have due process, just doesn't appeal.

President Reagan offered blanket amnesty and we now have the problem multiplied many times. Truth be told, I don't know how to deal with those here. I would go along with not allowing their children to become citizens if they are not here legally. I would not allow them to be hired or get drivers' licenses. I am all for the fence.

The problem will not be solved overnight and I will NOT lay the problem on the shoulders of this President.

As far as 'think tanks' are concerned. Great ideas, not many practical solutions, IMO

[jeltz25]

I agree mostly. My point is that to ask these questions and wonder if the the WH has answered them correctly deosn't make one a liberal appeaser.

And if your answers about State and CIA are correct, and Bush hasn't really done anything to rectify the situation, it's certainly acceptable to call him on it. Bush can fire guys from CIA, he can put new people in, get rid of the old guard. Same at State. He could have canned all the Clinton appointees like Tenet at CIA and Clinton people at State. He hasn't. And he's paying the consequences with the whole Wilson/Libby fiasco, all the leaks to the NYT and the WAPO on the renditions and the interrogations and the secret prosons every other thing the media's done to undermine the war.

Saying Bush made a mistake with Sadr and the Mahdi Army doesn't make one a John Murtha cut and runner, it just means one is trying to recognize problems and seek solutions that will work

I disagree with you about immediate democracy. Transitional authoritarian govts worked out fairly well in the ROK, Taiwan, Phillipines, Singapore and elsewhere. I think it was more crucial to establish order and security before plowing into democracy, at least on the national level. Maybe set up some local councils and stuff like that, but you needed to deal with the violence before yo could go ahead with democracy.

But simply asking these questions or criticizing Bush for certain choices or decisions doesn't mean you still support the mission. It just means you want to win and you want to make the choices taht will best achieve that objective.

[Elyse]

I agree with you about the media. They're despicable.

In every war wrong decisions are made and it doesn't always mean the people in charge are incompetent. War is just unpredictable and complex and no one can fully 'organize' a war to run smoothly.

I'm not saying that I fully agree with these people, but if the media gave fair and balanced reports on the war, then people could look at these 'mistakes' objectively and treat them as items for educational debate. Because the American people are not getting a fair and balanced view, these 'mistakes' are used as partisan political fodder and it just hurts our whole country.