Richard Perle resignation is long overdue
Standard Times
1st April 2003
One of the architects of the American war in Iraq stepped down last week as chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board, an advisory group to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
We hope the resignation by Richard Perle means that some of his ideas have come under much-needed scrutiny by the Bush administration now that his obvious conflicts of interest have been revealed.
These conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict send a terrible message to the world that the American war in Iraq may be as much about corporate interests as about the much-touted goal of liberation.
Mr. Perle, who chaired the Defense Policy Board for two years, holds the distinction of being criticized by both the right and the left. About a week before his resignation, he was the subject of critical articles in The New Yorker and The American Conservative.
Both pieces, in different ways, raised serious questions about Perle's allegiances and whether the security of the American people are a top priority for him or the policies he has advocated for more than a decade.
New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh described a January lunch meeting in the south of France between Perle, Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, and another Saudi industrialist. The article suggested that Perle was taking advantage of the world's lack of security and the imminent war in Iraq to do business for his company, Trireme Partners L.P., which invests in homeland security and defense technology.
No deals were apparently signed at the lunch, but the meeting alone was criticized by other members of the Defense Policy Board as highly inappropriate.
This article was followed by daily newspaper accounts of a lucrative business deal in which Perle was hired by Global Crossing, a large telecommunications company, that needed to overcome Pentagon security objections to its technology sales to Asian investors. The firm promised Perle a sizable bonus if he could help surmount the opposition.
The other magazine article critical of Perle was written by well-known conservative and former presidential contender Patrick J. Buchanan. Appearing in The American Conservative, the article entitled, "Whose War?" suggests that the neoconservatives led by Perle, and other officials embedded in Bush's inner circle have devised a Middle East strategy that shows more concern with Israel's security than that of the United States.
A key tenet of the neoconservative strategy is to disregard the effectiveness of negotiation as a means to peace and security between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, the strategy outlined in neoconservative documents of the 1990s is based on using American unilateral military might and preemption to shape the Middle East, fully disregarding the United Nations and the sentiments of a world community that desires political, not military, solutions whenever possible.
Perle's resignation may not be a signal that the Bush administration is rethinking the neoconservative strategy in the Middle East. But we truly hope it is such a sign.
This story appeared on Page A12 of The Standard-Times on April 1, 2003
Richard Perle resignation is long overdue
Standard Times
1st April 2003
One of the architects of the American war in Iraq stepped down last week as chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board, an advisory group to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
We hope the resignation by Richard Perle means that some of his ideas have come under much-needed scrutiny by the Bush administration now that his obvious conflicts of interest have been revealed.
These conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict send a terrible message to the world that the American war in Iraq may be as much about corporate interests as about the much-touted goal of liberation.
Mr. Perle, who chaired the Defense Policy Board for two years, holds the distinction of being criticized by both the right and the left. About a week before his resignation, he was the subject of critical articles in The New Yorker and The American Conservative.
Both pieces, in different ways, raised serious questions about Perle's allegiances and whether the security of the American people are a top priority for him or the policies he has advocated for more than a decade.
New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh described a January lunch meeting in the south of France between Perle, Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, and another Saudi industrialist. The article suggested that Perle was taking advantage of the world's lack of security and the imminent war in Iraq to do business for his company, Trireme Partners L.P., which invests in homeland security and defense technology.
No deals were apparently signed at the lunch, but the meeting alone was criticized by other members of the Defense Policy Board as highly inappropriate.
This article was followed by daily newspaper accounts of a lucrative business deal in which Perle was hired by Global Crossing, a large telecommunications company, that needed to overcome Pentagon security objections to its technology sales to Asian investors. The firm promised Perle a sizable bonus if he could help surmount the opposition.
The other magazine article critical of Perle was written by well-known conservative and former presidential contender Patrick J. Buchanan. Appearing in The American Conservative, the article entitled, "Whose War?" suggests that the neoconservatives led by Perle, and other officials embedded in Bush's inner circle have devised a Middle East strategy that shows more concern with Israel's security than that of the United States.
A key tenet of the neoconservative strategy is to disregard the effectiveness of negotiation as a means to peace and security between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, the strategy outlined in neoconservative documents of the 1990s is based on using American unilateral military might and preemption to shape the Middle East, fully disregarding the United Nations and the sentiments of a world community that desires political, not military, solutions whenever possible.
Perle's resignation may not be a signal that the Bush administration is rethinking the neoconservative strategy in the Middle East. But we truly hope it is such a sign.
This story appeared on Page A12 of The Standard-Times on April 1, 2003
