The Taliban has still not fallen in Afghanistan, but according to defense expert Richard Perle, the US should start planning an attack on Iraq as the next step in the government's counter-terrorism efforts.
Perle serves as the chairman of the US Department of Defense's Defense Policy Board and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy from 1981 to 1987. He told a crowd of students on Wednesday that the US should - and would - strike against Iraq soon, before an attack by Saddam Hussein necessitates retaliation.
The US should have embarked on an operation in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, according to Perle. Prior to the terrorist attacks, he explained, the US never supported terrorist-harboring countries, but the government also did not retaliate against previous attacks.
Perle, the father of Tufts senior Jonathan Perle, was speaking at a panel discussion titled "Countering International Terrorism: A Comprehensive Security Approach." He was joined by Dr. Andrew Hess, a professor of diplomacy at the Fletcher School and a Middle East historian. The panel was sponsored Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) and the Institute for Global Leadership.
According to Perle, there are terrorist groups in 60 to 70 other countries centered around the Afghanistan-based Al Qaeda network. In destroying Al Qaeda bases and the Taliban, which allegedly protects them, Perle said that America will weaken the other groups as well.
But weakening the groups is not enough. "America will now go after terrorists everywhere until all are gone, completely," Perle said.
According to Hess, however, the decision to strike other countries is not a simple one. "Attacking just terrorists looks very good on paper," he said, but it may not be the best option for the US. He suggested cutting off the terrorists' resources as a more realistic and effective course of action.
Perle said that the US only needs to go to war with some of the countries who harbor terrorist groups, not all of them. He explained that widespread attacks will set examples and make countries sympathetic to terrorists more inclined to change their official attitudes.
But Hess warned that the US should consider the region's instability. He thinks the US should concentrate on curtailing the proliferation of anti-American sentiment and work to eliminate the resentment that has already taken root.
To do that, Perle suggested cutting off funds to countries such as Egypt if their governments do not agree to stop anti-Western religious services.
But the method would have little effectiveness in uncooperative nations like Iraq. Perle said that the US should go after Hussein because unlike other states sponsoring terrorism, Hussein has access to biological weapons of mass destruction, and within the next 2 or 3 years, he will acquire nuclear weapons.
The US, he added, became particularly vulnerable when George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Hussein, with memories of Desert Storm, harbors particular dislike for the Bush family. He said the US should model an attack on Iraq on its operation in Afghanistan, by garnering local opposition to expedite victory.
Susan Fink, a doctoral student at the Fletcher School, was "pleased that EPIIC took the initiative during this time." She said Perle's expertise as a strategist and a Hess's deep knowledge of the Middle East and its history were necessary points of view in any discussion about the US response.
