How it came to be that Richard Perle and his ideas should be at the basis of the strategy of a great nation has been repeatedly questioned in the last two years. The truth is that it is not unusual for an adventurous theorist or those with interests that conflict with the work of the US to infiltrate into the ranks of American strategists. This actually reflects the reality of a political system that opens its doors to the likes of these people and is consequently affected by the struggle of organizations outside the government including those with extremist trends such as that adopted by right-wingers.
During the era of Ronald Reagan there were many times when the US provoked allies such as the UN, despite the fact that the latter provided secure means for a country looking for a way to organize the world in a manner that best suited its interests. Strained times passed with the Eastern bloc too because of the extreme right-wing tendencies of representatives whose stands almost led America into dangerous confrontations.
However, the strings that most tied down the Americans was the Arab-Israeli conflict, a problem that doesn’t serve its interests at all. It is also an issue that corresponded to election interests and to pressure centers allied to Tel Aviv. Most leading American State Department employees were opposed to these policies. However, the State Department wasn’t the one controlling this issue. The American policy harmed US interests for long decades and still does.
Richard Perle, who became a consultant penetrating into the Ministry of Defense by taking advantage of the influence of the pillars of the ministry around the current president, is an example of the more extreme ideas. Extremism of the kind that Washington hadn’t been seen in the Middle East, where he became infamous for establishing the total regional change document, pushing it to the extreme and thus widening the circle of enemies before any war on the ground could begin.
His suggestions created much argument in the last two years — but no one had a clue of how much influence his ideas enjoyed until the American government set about on an unnecessary war. There is a consensus in the West on the need for change in the Iraqi regime for a number of reasons, among them tidying up the situation of a nation that has been left hanging. This could have been achieved without resorting to outright war. It was possible to leave it to the Iraqi forces that were never given a real chance. The Iraqi opposition never got true support from the Americans in the years since the second Gulf War. The aid given was small and limited to weak Iraqi sides with no real power. This was indicative that Washington didn’t wish for a change in Saddam’s regime but only sought to annoy him. Suddenly the policy changed from refusing to provide weapons to sending all of the country’s army and requisitioning $70 billion for war.
Not only had Perle founded the idea of pursuing the America’s enemies but had also added friends, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to the list and also expanded the idea of change so that its limits became unclear. His ideas were subject to ridicule by critics inside America.
However, the movement of the American military equipment confirmed that Perle’s ideas are the driving force behind the executives in the administration.
Arab News Opinion 5 April 2003
