Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Perle blames Iraq opposition on U.S.
The problems didn’t start immediately after Saddam’s removal. The problems started when the occupation began to wear on the people, and that was predictable. (Perle on O'Reilly, via Newsmax)Perle's claim is that if we had not stayed on as occupiers, the insurgency would never have taken place! How is that different from blaming 9/11 on America? If only we hadn't irritated the Muslim world by being so superior, and by not letting them annihilate Israel. The fact is, the Islamo-fascists cannot be appeased. To think that they would not have allied with the Baathist remnant in Iraq to try to hold onto that country, no matter what we did, is ludicrous. If we had left, Iraq would simply have been overrun. This idiot has been an architect of U.S. policy? Brrrrrr.
Perle's intent is to exculpate Rumsfeld and the Pentagon (and himself) for the condition of Iraq, while blaming Powell and State. (Why would any sane person want to escape "blame" for one of the great successes and good deeds of all time?) I am certainly sympathetic to blaming State for bad things and crediting Defense with good, but in this case the "bad" thing isn't bad, and if Perle is to believed, it looks like we owe Powell and State some credit for keeping us fully committed in Iraq.
It's not true, of course. It seems pretty clear (now) that Saddam had a backup plan in the event the U.S. and its allies rolled over his army. "What ifs" like this are just smoke.