Richard Perle sees no point in learning from our mistakes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I just heard the tail end of an interview with Perle on NPR. The very last question he was asked was (paraphrasing) whether, looking back ten years later, he felt the Iraq War was worth the cost.

He refused to answer the question, saying (again, paraphrasing) that we did it because at the time we thought it was necessary, and that there was no point looking back and trying to figure out if the war was worth pursuing.

Even leaving aside the matter of whether or not we truly "thought it was necessary", what sort of person flatly claims that there is no point in looking back and assessing our actions and whether they were sensible or not? How can we prevent ourselves from making future mistakes if we aren't willing to learn from earlier ones?
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
I seriously question the judgment of anyone who sees no point in looking back and re-evaluating the justification/necessity of a war.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
I seriously question the judgment of anyone who sees no point in looking back and re-evaluating the justification/necessity of a war.

One also needs to look at the purpose of such an evaluation.

Is it a feel good about something or is it such that one can learn from the mistakes.

To many people want to thump their chests with an I told you so.




There are many roads not taken. When you get to the end of the road you are on is only when you decide should you have taken another road.

While you are not at the destination, you have multiple choices, each leading to a different end location.

Without knowing the roads; you can only use your judgement at the time.
 
Last edited:

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
There are many roads not taken. When you get to the end of the road you are on is only when you decide should you have taken another road.

While you are not at the destination, you have multiple choices, each leading to a different end location.

Without knowing the roads; you can only use your judgement at the time.

That reminds me of a quote that I heard when it comes to passing judgements on peoples in the past and history in general: "The biggest obstacle to understanding how people acted in the past is that we know their future". It's an almost Gods-Eye view of historical events and it's incredibly easy to facepalm and say "what the hell were they thinking, see what happened"!
This is coming from someone who was skeptical of going into Iraq but did swallow the WMD story hook line and sinker. Easy to point and say HAHA now...
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
One can try to question the motives of those who want to look back and assign blame for the disaster that was the Iraq War. But it's equally easy to question the motives of those who refuse to do so. Particularly people who were major contributors to the war happening in the first place, like Perle.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any wise reflections on the appropriate way to study history in his comment. I just see a guilty man trying to cover his ass.

I've made decisions in my life that seemed to make sense at the time, but turned out to be mistakes. I can't undo those errors, but I can at least study what my reasoning was so I don't repeat them.

Millions of people in this country, to this day, think it wasn't even a mistake for us to start this war. That doesn't bode well for the possibility that we will avoid another similar mess in the future.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
[ ... ]
what sort of person flatly claims that there is no point in looking back and assessing our actions and whether they were sensible or not?
Someone who doesn't want to be held accountable for his actions, or someone who doesn't want to accept that his faith doesn't match reality.


How can we prevent ourselves from making future mistakes if we aren't willing to learn from earlier ones?
You can't, which is the point. The people who most fervently cheered for attacking Iraq do not want to learn, and the ringleaders especially do not want others to learn. They have an ulterior agenda that requires ignorant, emotional masses who can be manipulated by fear mongering. If the American people learn how they were manipulated, it may prompt them to raise inconvenient questions the next time they're being sold a lie.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I just heard the tail end of an interview with Perle on NPR. The very last question he was asked was (paraphrasing) whether, looking back ten years later, he felt the Iraq War was worth the cost.

He refused to answer the question, saying (again, paraphrasing) that we did it because at the time we thought it was necessary, and that there was no point looking back and trying to figure out if the war was worth pursuing.

Even leaving aside the matter of whether or not we truly "thought it was necessary", what sort of person flatly claims that there is no point in looking back and assessing our actions and whether they were sensible or not? How can we prevent ourselves from making future mistakes if we aren't willing to learn from earlier ones?

I think you're confusing two different things here.

The specific question he was asked and addressed is was it worth the cost? This is different from the question of whether there's any merit to looking back for lessons to be learned (I am on record here saying there is).

As to the question of was the cost worth it, I think it is unknowable. We basically know what the cost was. To answer the question of whether it was worth it we would need to weigh the benefits, if any, to that cost. The question of what were the benefits requires that we know what would have happened in the alternate universe where we didn't go to war and remove Saddam. But that is unknowable.

No one can know, but it is my belief that had Saddam remained in power we may well be looking at a much different world. Could Saddam have gotten a nuclear weapon? IMO, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Dr Khan and Pakistan were running a nuclear black market. IIRC, that's where North Korea is suspected of getting theirs. I don't see why it's inconceivable to think one or the other wouldn't have sold to Saddam. And I must wonder what Saddam would be doing now about Iran. Given the historical animosity between Iraq and Iran I cannot see him sitting still while Iran gets nukes. But no one can know with any certainty what would have happened, so there is no way to measure any benefit against the cost.

As to lessons to be learned; they are numerous. How reliable is our intelligence? Can disgruntled foreigners providing intel about their home countries be trusted? How about a damn exit strategy? In fact, how about exit strategy plan A, B and C? Since WWII have we ever been successful at nation (re)building?. The list is quite long and has really nothing to do with the question of whether the cost was worth it. If these lessons have anything to do with cost, it only concerns our ability to accurately forecast such costs. Clearly the Bush admin did a bad job as regards estimating the costs. They underestimated badly. Maybe the real lesson is that with a complicated country like Iraq, sitting in a critical geopolitical and economic area, the complexities are simply too great to allow for accurate estimates. It's simply beyond our ability. (Although I'll say again that Sen Byrd nailed it in his remarks on the Senate floor.)

Fern
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Fern, I think you make some good points here. It's true that asking if the war was worth it is not the same as looking back for lessons.

But in this case, I didn't perceive much interest from him in either. This is a man with a track record of trying to whitewash his involvement and his personal culpability in this disaster.

I think you overstate the degree of unknowability here, as well as the influence that should have on how we deal with these situations. The outcome from an alternative action is unknowable to a certainty, but the outcome before the original action was unknowable as well -- and yet it was undertaken. We must assess actions and look back on them afterwards to help us learn how to improve in foreseeing for the future.

The standard to be reached here is not that we should judge the decision to go to Iraq as a mistake based on a presumption of what would have happened had we not. The point is to look back and realize that we were sold a bill of goods by people who claimed a danger that was overblown, and promised us a result they were in no position to promise.

That same "unknowability" should have in the past, and should in the future, lead to extreme caution before opening any further Pandora's boxes.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I happened to find the exact text on the web this morning, so for the record:

Montagne: Ten years later, nearly 5000 American troops dead, thousands more with wounds, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or wounded. When you think about this, was it worth it?

Perle: I’ve got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done with the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can’t a decade later go back and say we shouldn’t have done that.

I think the exact text better supports my saying he didn't want to learn from past mistakes. Because he flatly declared that because we felt it was worth doing back then, we shouldn't bother to go back and assess the process by which we made that decision. And without doing that, how can we ever learn or avoid similar mistakes in the future?

Of course, as Bowfinger suggested, it's highly likely that the real reason he ducked this issue is that he would do exactly the same thing all over again.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
These Neocon types get it all wrong on everything and yet keep getting to be considered a main and legitimate political faction by many.

Clinton's budget? Every Republican said it would doom the economy and it passed with zero Republican votes; the opposite of what they said happened. They say they are against a big deficit while it skyrockets under Republicans and the only big decreass have been under Cliinton and Obama since 'starve the beast' starte under Reagan. These are the same people who got it wrong on the Soviet Union and pushed for Vietnam, who would have led us to nuclear war and have led us to unnecessary war and sponsoring terrorism and government by death squad.

What do they have to do for people to stop considering them worth listening to?

As disastrous as they sound and are for the people of the US and the world, they have made a few people very wealthy. Apparently that's worth more than not being wrong on about every issue.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,598
8,659
136
I'm willing to bet that if you showed them the cost in dead, wounded, and in $2 trillion, the average American would want answers. That the attitude Perel expressed is a minority view.

I view it of critical importance to learn what we can from the Iraq war, in order to guard ourselves against a repeat disaster, and I foolishly and staunchly supported it at the time.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Jaskalas, the thing is, there aren't really any new lessons than from many wars before. A few learn lessons, most don't and history repeats.

You can trace how things got to the situation they were in in Iraq going back in Middle East history to greedy motives of the west, to England over a century ago. and before that to warring factions.

To think the Iraq war hung in the balance of 534 votes in Florida, hm?

I think Iran is hotter than most realize, and could well be the next situation we get drug into, a huge milestone for some people's agenda for the middle east.

We can't even say 'sorry' for taking their democracy in 1953 to work towards peace. No wonder they don't trust their security to the west as they're surrounded by US allies now.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Simply, he's an absolutely terrible human being.

I heard the interview also and he twice referred to his incredulity at the absolute horror of looking back "a decade later", as if the same questions asked of him had not been asked at the time (they absolutely were).

I guess it was harder back in the day, when troops were dying in greater numbers, but it would be nice to see more leaders actually say "Look, not only was the war a waste, but so was your child's death. The US did that to him due to our poor intelligence and planning. So, if you ask did your child die in vain? I'd have to say yes in this case he did."

If our society is willing to ask of people the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, how can we lack the spine to admit when we've wasted their sacrifice?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Simply, he's an absolutely terrible human being.

I heard the interview also and he twice referred to his incredulity at the absolute horror of looking back "a decade later", as if the same questions asked of him had not been asked at the time (they absolutely were).

I guess it was harder back in the day, when troops were dying in greater numbers, but it would be nice to see more leaders actually say "Look, not only was the war a waste, but so was your child's death. The US did that to him due to our poor intelligence and planning. So, if you ask did your child die in vain? I'd have to say yes in this case he did."

If our society is willing to ask of people the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, how can we lack the spine to admit when we've wasted their sacrifice?

Except it wasn't really due to 'poor intelligence and planning'. It was worse than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.