Crossposted from European Tribune and my blog.
Jyllands-Posten's Flemming Rose -- yes, the man who commissioned certain caricatures -- has interviewed the influential neo-conman in his Washington home.
Suspected by some of having better-than-average connections at Mossad and widely admired for his ability to wield unofficial power, Perle says he would gladly depose Saddam Hussein again. He also claims that the neocons "lost every political battle in the Bush administration" and that the policies implemented in Iraq had nought to do with them. Above all he has harsh words for Europe.
I have confined myself to translating, and fisking, a few excerpts. Since this involves translating Perle's remarks back to English, the exact wording of the citations should be treated with caution.
On Europe:
Europe has no backbone or will to confront uncomfortable facts. Whether it comes to globalization and its influence on European economies, fighting terrorism, or the willingness to make sacrifices when genocides occur elsewhere, Europe has sunk into complacent apathy and lack of realism... Americans have a moral dimension in their approach. That cannot be said of the Europeans at present... They have failed to invest in the necessary technology to strengthen their militaries and are not prepared to spend more than trifles on development aid. And even that is more about easing their conscience than helping out. For they aren't concerned about how the money is spent...
Certainly the US war machine remains unmatched. The impressive military-industrial complex is a major reason why 400 Americans earn significantly more than the 166 million citizens of the four countries on their President's 2003 Africa tour combined. But the claim about development aid is not quite true, Dick. From an overview in Foreign Policy last year:
For example, the United States provided about $51 per citizen in official development assistance in 2002-03. That ranks it in 16th place among other major donors, behind Norway ($381 per citizen), the Netherlands ($203 per citizen), France ($96 per citizen), and the United Kingdom ($89 per citizen), among others. When aid is measured as a share of national income, the United States ranks dead last at 0.15 percent. Top givers include Norway (0.92), Denmark (0.84), Belgium (0.60), and Germany (0.28).
On the other hand, you may be right that the US is more picky about the receiving ends of the aid. A fifth of official US aid is direct transfers to another industrial country, which also happens to be the world's fourth greatest military power and the only one to spend substantially more on arms per capita than the US.
And just so there is no misunderstanding:
Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.
Perle again:
The American government is afraid to appear isolated and without allies. That is why the Germans can say they are making a great effort in Afghanistan. The French in Afghanistan are a joke. By and large we do everything ourselves.
There are 9,200 non-American (mostly European) troops in Afghanistan; the number will increase to 15,000. If these count for nothing, they should be told so. I am sure they would be happy to return to home.
On Iraq:
That we have not found WMDs does not change [the fact that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the US]. Saddam had the capability to restart his programs. The risk of leaving him alone was too great. Then there are some, especially in the CIA and in parts of the Department of Defense and the State Department, who object: In that case, why couldn't we limit ourselves to instigate a coup against Saddam, so we would not have to deal with all the questions of social and political rebellion, and even without a guarantee of success. These people wanted to replace one criminal with another. I and my allies believed it was an obvious advantage to depose Saddam and make it possible to establish a humane and honest government in Iraq. There was no guarantee, but there was an opportunity. So I would do it again, based on what we knew then and also based on what we know now. But -- and this is essential -- I would do it differently.
And how would that be? Here's the beef:
I believed... that we should have supported the founding of a government-in-exile based on the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi.
Ah yes, we remember: "the George Washington of Iraq." This alleged Iranian double agent is a personal friend of Perle, one whose role John Dizard at Salon has summarized neatly:
It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country's readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation's leaders to predict -- and apparently even believe -- that they would be greeted as liberators. Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them.
Back to Perle:
I proposed that we should train Iraqis ahead of the war, and that these should have gone in along with us... After the fall of Saddam I would immediately have turned the executive power over to the Iraqis.
But to which Iraqis exactly? The answer is presumably Chalabi, a larger-than-life fugitive from justice who a Jordanian court sentenced to 22 years in jail on 31 charges of financial crime -- crime that cost Jordan 10 percent of its GDP.
Well Dick, isn't it then a little rich to accuse others of wanting to "replace one criminal with another"?
As well, some just might consider it relevant that Chalabi polled slightly below Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. "If Chalabi is the guy, there could be a civil war after Saddam's overthrow," one former CIA operative told The New Yorker's Seymor Hersh.
In fairness to Perle, there is civil war there now anyway.
On America:
Asked if he fears that the US could be tempted to withdraw from the world, Perle replies:
The risk is there if there grows to be agreement in the US that it was wrong and unfortunate to go into Iraq. I don't think that will happen. If so it will be a hard blow to those of us who believe the US has a special role to play in the world; not because the US wants it, but because it is a historical necessity. It is a sad fact that people suffer horribly when the US does not commit itself. Then we see wars in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda, Darfur and elsewhere. We are not a country like any other.
If that be so, Dick, you have a lot to answer for.