Despite some troubling episodes over the past decade, at least two top advisers to President George W. Bush think Ahmad Chalabi could be the one to save Iraq.
Chalabi, 69, is also the one credited with giving the Bush administration tenuous justification for invading Iraq, delivering false intelligence that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was later accused of spying on the U.S. for Iran.
But former Bush adviser Richard Perle says he’s still friends with Chalabi and defends his actions leading up to the Iraq War.
“Chalabi is far and away the most competent and the most capable of salvaging this situation,” said Perle, who chaired the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001 to 2003. “I think he’s got the best chance. It would be foolish if we expressed a preference for somebody less competent, which we’ve done before.”
Since his falling-out with the U.S. government, Chalabi has served in Iraq’s Parliament and was named last week as a candidate to succeed Nuri Kamal al-Maliki as the country’s prime minister. Pressure is mounting in Washington and Iraq for Maliki to resign because his Shia government has not welcomed the two other prominent Islamic factions, the Sunnis and Kurds, as the U.S. and Iraq had hoped it would. A unified government is seen as the first step toward preventing the insurgent group ISIS””the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria””from winning control over the region.
But a Chalabi rule in Iraq could be problematic for the U.S. Both the Pentagon and the CIA distanced themselves from Chalabi in the years following the invasion of Iraq. Republican Sen. John McCain, arguably Chalabi’s biggest proponent in Congress leading up to the Iraq War and who once called him “a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart,” said Monday that the politician is “playing both sides” to get ahead.
“I am not a supporter of Mr. Chalabi,” McCain said. “Since Chalabi started having close relations with the Iranians I have not supported him. From what I’ve heard, there’s very strong opposition to him amongst the Iraqis.”
Perle offered a different assessment of Chalabi’s reputation among the Iraqis.
“I think he’s under no illusions about whether the U.S. will support him, because of the long history of bureaucratic institutions not liking him,” Perle said. “Whether people like him or not, they know that he is first and foremost an Iraqi nationalist that will put Iraq’s interests first. Whereas Maliki put the interests of the Shia first.”
Perle cited Chalabi’s experience as head of the Iraqi National Congress””a Hussein opposition party established with the aid of the U.S. after the Gulf War to depose the Iraqi president””as evidence of Chalabi’s ability to unite the Islamic factions in Iraq.
“Nobody would be talking about him now if he wasn’t good at it,” Perle said. “If the U.S. is smart, they will work with whoever is able to bring some order out of this chaos. The U.S. is in no position to declare that it doesn’t like X or Y. They liked Maliki. It’s time for a little humility from U.S. officials. We should not be picking Iraqi officials for the Iraqi people. It’s time to let them do that themselves.”
Another top Bush aide, Paul Wolfowitz, told Bloomberg News over the weekend that Chalabi would be a viable option.
“The man is a survivor,” said Wolfowitz, who served as deputy Defense secretary from 2001 to 2005. “That’s impressive. I think he wants to succeed in what he does, he’s smart; maybe he’ll figure out a way to do it.”
Like McCain, Wolfowitz said he thought Chalabi’s ties to Iran are a reason to be concerned.
“We’ve put him in a situation where, in my view, he’s much too close to Iran,” Wolfowitz said.
However Wolfowitz doesn’t think that’s a reason to prevent a future working relationship with Chalabi.
“Chalabi is not an angel; no one in that system is an angel,” Wolfowitz said. “You have to be careful who you work with, but I think you need to try to work with everybody.”
What We're Following See More »
President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”
It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”
It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.
Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.