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.”
- 1 Smart Ideas, Convention Edition: Democrats’ Real Fault Line Is Over the Obama Years
- 2 Amid DNC Drama, Women Focus on Clinton’s Milestone
- 3 On Deck for Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention
- 4 Bill Clinton Tries to Humanize His Wife With a Political Love Story
- 5 Democrats Have A Health Care Platform, But Not Much Appetite To Fight For It
What We're Following See More »
“In the spring of 1971, I met a girl,” started Bill Clinton. In his speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention, Clinton brought a personal touch, telling parallel stories of his relationship with Hillary Clinton and the work she has done throughout her career. He lauded the Democratic nominee for her career of work, touching on her earliest days of advocacy for children and those with disabilities while in law school, her role as Secretary of State, and her work in raising their daughter, Chelsea. Providing a number of anecdotes throughout the speech, Clinton built to a crescendo, imploring the audience to support his wife for president. "You should elect her, she'll never quit when the going gets tough," he said. "Your children and grandchildren will be grateful."
A coalition of mothers whose children lost their lives in high profile cases across the country, known as the Mothers Of The Movement, were greeted with deafening chants of "Black Lives Matter" before telling their stories. The mothers of Sandra Bland, Jordan Davis, and Trayvon Martin spoke for the group, soliciting both tears and applause from the crowd. "Hillary Clinton has the compassion and understanding to comfort a grieving mother," said Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin. "And that's why, in the memory of our children, we are imploring you — all of you — to vote this election day."
With the South Dakota delegation announcing its delegate count, Hillary Rodham Clinton is officially the Democratic nominee for president, surpassing the 2383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton is expected to speak at the convention on Thursday night and officially accept the nomination.
About 5,500, according to official estimates. "The Monday figures marked a large increase from the protests at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where even the largest protests only drew a couple of hundred demonstrators. But it’s a far cry from the 35,000 to 50,000 that Philadelphia city officials initially expected."
Only a day after FiveThirtyEight's Now Cast gave Donald Trump a 57% chance of winning, the New York Times' Upshot fires back with its own analysis that shows Hillary Clinton with a 68% chance to be the next president. Its model "calculates win probabilities for each state," which incorporate recent polls plus "a state's past election results and national polling." Notably, all of the battleground states that "vote like the country as a whole" either lean toward Clinton or are toss-ups. None lean toward Trump.