Perle says sending additional troops to Iraq, including Turkish, would be a 'great mistake'

Amidst high level negotiations in New York at United Nations this week on whether to give more authority to international community in Iraq at the expense of US led coalition, Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon advisor said it would be a 'great mistake' to send additional troops and 'internationalize the future of Iraq'.

Asked about the prospects of Turkish troops to Iraq at a conference on Turkey at conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, Mr. Perle replied, 'The administration would welcome some outside help, probably as a symbol of international collaboration in this enterprise. And I think that would be a good thing. And it might have some modest relief to American forces. But I don't believe, it's central and vital that additional military forces be sent to Iraq.'

Recently resigned as chairman of Pentagon's powerful Defense Policy Board, Mr. Perle thinks, 'If we internationalize this in bringing large numbers of outside troops, it would probably delay the date at which we pass the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security.'

While saying 'The sooner Iraq is turned over to Iraqis, the better', he draws a distinction between the French position and his: 'When the French talk returning sovereignty to Iraqis, what they have in mind is a massive international intervention in the affairs of Iraq that will keep the international community there forever.'

'The UN doesn't go home', he asserts. 'It puts down bureaucratic roots and it does not relinquish them easily.'

To Mr. Perle, sending additional troops to Iraq is 'not a life or death matter' and would be 'probably damaging'.

Acknowledging 'we face now a very large challenge in Iraq in the aftermath of this war', Mr. Perle believes 'things in Iraq are a good deal better' than portrayed in the press.

Stating 'heart of the problem is radical Islam' in war on terrorism, Mr. Perle says the US reserves the right to act against terrorists independently 'because we don't have an international structure that gives us an opportunity to protect ourselves through the instruments of international law and international practice.'

Mr. Perle asserts, be it Republican or Democrat, no US administration can afford to ignore the magnitude of the threat America faces, and they would take most effective measures even 'if that means complications to our diplomacy, because other countries don't feel the same sense of danger that we do, so be it…'

Analyzing the diplomatic crisis erupted between Ankara and Washington when a governmental motion to allow American ground troops in Turkish soil was rejected by the parliament, Mr. Perle thinks that was mainly because of the 'newness' and 'lack of experience' of AK Party government, and regrets 'We lost an important opportunity to cooperate in liberation of Iraq'.

'We had a small glitch in the relationship. We passed that now. I expect we can go back to work closely together. That has already begun. And I see no lasting obstacle to that collaboration.' maintains Perle.

Contrary to what some war critics in Turkey claimed, Perle says, there were not major Iraqi civilian casualties and Turkish economy looks ' a lot better' now with even better prospects.

Asked about whether Pentagon is too much relying on Ahmad Chalabi, Mr. Perle said Chalabi is on his own and added: 'Iraqi people must choose their next government. If they choose Ahmed Chalabi, I think hey will have a very bright future.'

Trying to explain why ''primary justification' for the war, weapons of mass destruction were not yet found in Iraq, he argued 'We were right to liberate Iraq with or without WMD'.

So confident that war was justified, Mr. Perle went on saying, 'A year from now I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.'

According to Mr. Perle, main reasons for anti-Americanism in the world are 'simple jealousy' and 'natural resistance to the super power'. 'If we have to choose between anti-Americanism and relinquishing the measures necessary to protect ourselves, we're going to live with anti-Americanism.' concludes Perle.

You are not alone in your skepticism, but you are wrong.

Perle is a good advisor, and his input will help the President. He is correct in saying that history will judge well what President Bush and our military did to liberate Iraq and what we are doing to remake it as a free nation. He is also correct to say the war was justified on non-WMD grounds: Saddam attacked us in 1993 at the WTC, and continued to aid and abet terrorists.

Perle is also correct to distrust the UN - they ruin every nation-building attempt they try... Iraq is going so much better than Kosovo, Bosnia or Somalia, it's unbelievable.

I liked these quotes best:

'The UN doesn't go home', he asserts. 'It puts down bureaucratic roots and it does not relinquish them easily.' To Mr. Perle, sending additional troops to Iraq is 'not a life or death matter' and would be 'probably damaging'.

Peleo-cons should quit bashing neo-cons and start listening once in a while. They'll find a lot of common ground."

Overall, Perle and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have been mostly right on all matters wrt War on Terror, while State Dept has been mostly wrong ("Cave in to Arafat, that's the ticket to peace!"). If anyone is dangerous to Bush and America's its the underlings at State.

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.