Changes

Perle has a longstanding interest in the problem of [[Iraq]] and [[Saddam Hussein]].  In 1998, he co-signed a letter from [[PNAC]] to then-President [[Bill Clinton]]; it called on the President to "implement[] a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power" and noted that "[t]his will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."<ref name="PNAC">[http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to Bill Clinton from the Project for the New American Century]</ref>  The letter also argued that [[Saddam Hussein]]'s development of WMDs  would result in grave risk to [[Israel]], American troops in the region, moderate Arab states, and the world's oil supply.

Perle has a longstanding interest in the problem of [[Iraq]] and [[Saddam Hussein]].  In 1998, he co-signed a letter from [[PNAC]] to then-President [[Bill Clinton]]; it called on the President to "implement[] a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power" and noted that "[t]his will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."<ref name="PNAC">[http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to Bill Clinton from the Project for the New American Century]</ref>  The letter also argued that [[Saddam Hussein]]'s development of WMDs  would result in grave risk to [[Israel]], American troops in the region, moderate Arab states, and the world's oil supply.

Shortly after [[9/11]], Perle pressed for action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  He maintained that Iraq was involved in terrorism, that there were documentable ties between [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Osama bin Laden]], and that a primary goal of the [[war on terror]] should be to topple Saddam.  He said that terrorists should be pursued "even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society"—presumably proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is done in criminal trials--"that they were involved." <ref name="CNN916">[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/16/en.00.html CNN interview with Richard Perle on 9/16/2001]</ref>

Shortly after [[9/11]], Perle pressed for action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  He maintained that Iraq was involved in terrorism, that there were documentable ties between [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Osama bin Laden]], and that a primary goal of the [[war on terror]] should be to topple Saddam.  He said that terrorists should be pursued "even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society"—presumably proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is done in criminal trials--"that they were involved." <ref name="CNN916">[https://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/16/en.00.html CNN interview with Richard Perle on 9/16/2001]</ref>

Throughout 2001, 2002, and 2003, Perle continued to advocate war with Iraq as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.  According to one report, he claimed that only 40,000 troops would be required for the invasion, which in his view would involve taking control of the north and south, thus cutting Saddam off from the oil fields.  He is also quoted as saying that "[t]he Army guys," who had been calling for far more troops, "don't know anything."<ref name="AlterNet">[http://www.alternet.org/story/13098/ AlterNet article on Richard Perle]</ref>  Perle later stated that his view on this had been "distorted" and his proposal for 40,000 troops referred to "a different strategy in which we were working with the opposition."<ref name="PBS">[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/perle.html Frontline Interview with Richard Perle]</ref>

Throughout 2001, 2002, and 2003, Perle continued to advocate war with Iraq as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.  According to one report, he claimed that only 40,000 troops would be required for the invasion, which in his view would involve taking control of the north and south, thus cutting Saddam off from the oil fields.  He is also quoted as saying that "[t]he Army guys," who had been calling for far more troops, "don't know anything."<ref name="AlterNet">[http://www.alternet.org/story/13098/ AlterNet article on Richard Perle]</ref>  Perle later stated that his view on this had been "distorted" and his proposal for 40,000 troops referred to "a different strategy in which we were working with the opposition."<ref name="PBS">[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/perle.html Frontline Interview with Richard Perle]</ref>

His views on the Iraq war have changed in several ways:

His views on the Iraq war have changed in several ways:

* ''Legality of the war under "[[international law]]".''  In the 1998 PNAC letter, Perle and his cosigners stated that "we believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."<ref name="PNAC" />  In 2003, however, he stated that "international law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."<ref name="Guardian">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html ''Guardian'' story describing Perle's comments on the legality of the invasion]</ref>

* ''Legality of the war under "[[international law]]".''  In the 1998 PNAC letter, Perle and his cosigners stated that "we believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."<ref name="PNAC" />  In 2003, however, he stated that "international law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."<ref name="Guardian">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html ''Guardian'' story describing Perle's comments on the legality of the invasion]</ref>

* ''Overall opinion of the wisdom of the war.''  As noted above, Perle was originally a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq.  In a 2006 [[Vanity Fair]] article, he stated: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists'....Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."<ref name="Vanity Fair">[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612 Vanity Fair interview of several neoconservatives]</ref>

* ''Overall opinion of the wisdom of the war.''  As noted above, Perle was originally a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq.  In a 2006 [[Vanity Fair]] article, he stated: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists'....Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."<ref name="Vanity Fair">[https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612 Vanity Fair interview of several neoconservatives]</ref>

Overall, Perle acknowledges that "mistakes were made," and he is clear about where the buck stops:  "At the end of the day," he has said, "you have to hold the president responsible."<ref name="Vanity Fair" />

Overall, Perle acknowledges that "mistakes were made," and he is clear about where the buck stops:  "At the end of the day," he has said, "you have to hold the president responsible."<ref name="Vanity Fair" />