Screw the governments, poor people too
Iraqis Suffer From Radiation Symptoms
U.S. Troops Frustrated in Iraq
Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz: reasons for Iraq War
John Ashcroft testimony before House Judiciary Committee
What's Happening? Boron Interviews Chomsky

Download Printable(PDF) Newsletter

Peaceful Justice at Caltech

  • PJC Bulletin Board
  • Vol. 2 Issue 1
  • Vol. 1 Issue 6
  • Vol. 1 Issue 5
  • Vol. 1 Issue 4
  • Vol. 1 Issue 3
  • Vol. 1 Issue 2
  • Vol. 1 Issue 1

  • Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz on the reasons for Iraq War
    Excerpts from the news transript of Sam Tannenbaus' Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz
    U.S. Department of Defense: News Transcript
    May 9, 2003

    The following are excerpts from an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense and major architect of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. The interview was conducted by Sam Tanenhaus, and forms the basis of his article in the July 2003 issue of Vanity Fair.

    Q: And then in the next few days [after September 11th], then there was the statement which now looks remarkably [prescient] when you said this is a campaign. At that point, I think it was the 13th, at that point was Iraq sort of moving into the scope, under the radar screen? What was your thinking at that point?

    Wolfowitz: I know my thinking at that point was that the old approach to terrorism was not acceptable any longer. The old approach being you treat it as a law enforcement problem rather than a national security problem. You pursue terrorists after they've done things and bring them to justice, and to the extent states are perhaps involved, you retaliate against them but you don't really expect to get them out of the business of supporting terrorism completely.

    To me what September 11th meant was that we just couldn't live with terrorism any longer.[...]

    Q: Right. So Iraq naturally came to the top of the list because of its history and the weapons of mass terror and all the rest, is that right?

    Wolfowitz: Yes, plus the fact which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11th.

    Q: [...] It's been reported in a couple of different ways, and I'd like to get it in your words if I can, the famous meetings that first weekend in Camp David where the question of Iraq came up. I believe the President heard you discussing Iraq and asked you to elaborate on it or speak more about it. Can you give us a little sense of what that was like?

    Wolfowitz: Yeah. There was a long discussion during the day about what place if any Iraq should have in a counterterrorist strategy. On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when. There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first.

    There was a sort of undertow in that discussion I think that was, the real issue was whether Iraq should be part of the strategy at all and whether we should have this large strategic objective which is getting governments out of the business of supporting terrorism, or whether we should simply go after bin Laden and al Qaeda.

    To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal.


    Q: And then the last question, you've been very patient and generous. That is what's next? Where do we stand now in the campaign that you talked about right after September 11th?

    Wolfowitz: [...] There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

    I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.[...]

    The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but [...] there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.[...] The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

    Q: So this notion then that the strategic question was really a part of the equation, that you were looking at Saudi Arabia --

    Wolfowitz: I was.

    For the full transcript please visit the News Transcript section of the U.S. Department of Defense site at: http://www.defenselink.mil

    Newsletter | PJC Bulletin Board