Paul Pillar on Charlie Rose
An important new book on the Iraq war published by Columbia University Press, written by a former longtime CIA official, contains a dual loyalty charge against the neoconservatives, saying that some of them had Israeli interests and not just American interests “at heart” in pushing the war. The charge concludes a section that names Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Paul Wolfowitz as former Bush officials who cared about Israel.
Author Paul Pillar has a stellar Establishment reputation. He held several senior positions at the CIA and National Intelligence Council, serving during the Iraq war. Now a professor at the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, he has published a sharp critique of the war effort, titled Intelligence and US Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform.
I got the book yesterday and find that it repeatedly attacks the neoconservatives for hatching the plans for this disastrous war, which was then executed by “assertive nationalists,” Rumsfeld and Cheney. Pillar calls them a “cabal.”
The Iraq adventure was initiated by a small number of neoconservative intellectuals and assertive nationalists, ultimately backed by George W. Bush’s gut. The numbers were small enough for Powell’s longtime assistant Lawrence Wilkerson to refer plausibly to a “cabal” as being responsible for the war.
Pillar is hardest on the neoconservative ideology of using force to spread democracy in the Arab world. He devotes many pages to exploring, and exploding, these ideas.
He singles out former Bush aides David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz for their roles in fomenting the war and though he says that talking about Israeli security as a motive is the “third rail of American politics,” he concludes that “sympathy for Israel and its interests” played an important role in the war plans.
Specifically, in a four-page section titled “Israel,” conveniently overlooked by the NYT Book Review of the book, Pillar cites Feith, Perle and Wurmser for assisting Netanyahu in the late 90s with the “Clean Break” policy paper that urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the outsourcing of the Palestinian problem to Jordan. Though he does not say that all three men are Jewish, Pillar quotes these religious words by those neocons in that plan, rejecting the idea of land for peace:
“Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble.”
Pillar then states that Feith’s “dedication to Israeli interests had an intensely personal foundation,” describing the annihilation of his father Dalck’s whole family in Poland during the Holocaust.
Pillar describes Wolfowitz as “another architect of the Iraq war with connections to Israel” and offers that his sister moved to Israel and he was celebrated by the Jerusalem Post as a strong supporter of Israel.
Pillar’s section on the Israel interests concludes thusly:
Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator of the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role….[S]ome policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the post invasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart.
Funny, I was reading Justin Elliots latest on the block/davis spat
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/ex_aipac_flack_in_war_of_words_with_biz_partner/
For some reason, i think both davis and block are going to see eye to eye on Pillars book…great post phil….
Though he does not say that all three men are Jewish, Pillar quotes these religious words by those neocons in that plan, rejecting the idea of land for peace:
“Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble.”
hmm. excellent review phil.
Endless war is not “good for the Jews”. It has coarsened Israel and means the society is more violent. More extremist. Unable to plan efficiently. I imagine there’s a lot of wife beating in Israel compared to Norway.
Perle and co live in gated communities and will never feel the insecurity of Jews who are forced to leave their Sparta.
I think it is legitimate to talk about these issues.
But what I do not want is a situation where it is the only thing we talk about.
The Israel Lobby is powerful, yes, but it isn’t the only lobby influencing foreign policy. Not just among (semi) ethnic lobbies, but we have to take into account the military-industrial complex too. As well as simple greed for oil. Iraq has the capacity to produce 10 mb/d of oil. It was producing 3.5 or so for several decades under Saddam due to underinvestment and other issues. Of course that plays a huge role too.
I would hazard that his book is more nuanced than the view we get here, which is, basically, only Israel and the neocons.
Walt and Mearsheimer stated this on the issue a few years back:
“The Iraq war was not solely influenced by the Israel lobby. There were other factors at play. But it was a major force, and without it, the war would likely not have happened”.
That’s speculation on their part, of course, but it’s a valid speculation nontheless.
Another issue: it’s very naive of him to talk about the neocons and then use the word ‘cabal’ in the context.
I think he basically argues that a bunch of Jewish Israel-Firsters together with Rumsfeld/Cheney and the Oil Lobby/Military-Industrial complex convened upon Iraq and sold it to the public by a willing/coerced media.
But if we only focus on one part, the Israel Firsters, then that brutalizes the discussion and simplifies it. I take the hyperventilation of the neocons lightly, but the specter of a slow-moving anti-Semitism in certain circles shouldn’t be underestimated if the discussion is allowed to be dumbed down and solely focused on the Jewish fringe concentrated among the neocons(sure there were non-Jewish neocons too, but these were generally not as influential and/or as numerous, with a few exceptions).
I haven’t read the book, but I would venture that it was more nuanced than this view that we’ve gotten here. I don’t mean to be harsh, but it risks the author being singled out for a single-minded focus he didn’t have – by only focusing on one issue – and narrowing the discussion to only the Israel lobby which I find disheartening and frankly a little bit dangerous.
Don’t take this comment as a call for censorship; rather as a call to broaden the discussion and give it depth.
Thanks for reviewing this, Phil. Just bought my Kindle copy. Robert D Steele’s Amazon review of this book at your first link above is not to be missed, either, for some choice quotes.