Our old buddy Richard Perle, otherwise known as the Prince of Darkness, appeared on Charlie Rose’s program on Wednesday night. I tuned in just after the interview began.
There is no transcript available for this show, as far as I know, so being the industrious fellow that I am, I took notes. I can only guarantee that they are substantially accurate, but you’ll just have to trust me.
At first, Perle gave me exactly what I expected. The US “can’t exclude the possibility of military action elsewhere in the Middle East.” Perle says “the Middle East is producing the vast amount of terrorists in the world”. Specifically Syria, which Perle says is funding and encouraging, from an ideological standpoint, the insurgency in Iraq – Oh and Iran, of course, Neocon Nation’s current whipping boy. Perle suggested, in what must seem like a sensible evaluation to a democracy-worshipper, that an Iraqi Shia government would be a rival – not an ally – of Iran, despite their religious, ethnic, and cultural similarities, reason being that the Iraqi government will be elected legitimately (giggle). A more sensible evaluation, in my view, would be that a solid stream of US greenbacks, along with a dozen or so permanent US military bases in Iraq will force any Iraqi government to be unnecessarily belligerent to Iran.
Perle’s assessment is ripe with mysticism and outright lies. Even if Syria were not providing aid and comfort, shall we say, to the Iraqi insurgency (which I’m sure they are, but who knows), the insurgency would still exist, for reasons easy to understand. Now, this is where it gets complicated, because Perle understands why occupation produces insurgency. He admitted it on TV. Here is what he said. The occupation is “sadly misguided”, and the US “should have turned over Iraq to the Iraqis immediately” (immediately following Saddam’s retirement). The US “should have been working with Iraqis” to expedite a quick and bloodless regime change. However, “tremendous progress has been made”, and “most of Iraq is relatively safe”. Yeah, for the cockroaches. This is what’s called having your cake and eating it too. Rose asked Perle if the Pentagon was responsible for the philosophy behind the occupation, but Perle denied that, and claimed “other government agencies” were agitating for it. Indeed they were …
Here’s the thing; Perle led Rose into the occupation issue. He was eager to say that it’s a mistake (committed by someone else, of course). Perle made a statement along the lines of ‘failed military actions often can lead to destructive occupations’. Rose said “isn’t that what we have now in Iraq?
Why would Perle want to answer such a question? In my estimation, so he can weasel his way out of responsibility for it, and at the same time agitate for more attacks elsewhere in the region. Attacks done correctly this time.
Skip to content