Profile: Perle - shrewd manipulator

Throughout his stint in public office, Richard Perle stirred heated debate over his numerous controversial stands and blunt opinions which often verged on the brink of rudeness.

A Senior Resident Fellow of the right wing think tank. American Enterprise Institute, Perle, with a bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California and a master's in Political Science from Princeton under his belt, smoothly manoeuvred his way through the corridors of politics by virtue of comprehending the existence of power that lay within Washington's inner circles.

His tenure as a member of the U.S. Senate from 1969 to 1980 and as assistant secretary of defence for international security policy from 1981 to 1987 offered him an accommodating environment. This was quite evident from the growing influence he wielded in the world of politics. This was Perle's triumph. His razor sharp shrewdness came in quite handy for Washington's hawkish neo-conservative bureaucrats for whom he was some kind of a guru, carving out stances that would later be translated into policies, an excellent example of which is the unfolding current events in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.

But he suffered a short setback as a result of the allegations against him of a conflict of interest between his position as Chairman of the Pentagon's influential Defence Policy Board (DPB) and his business connections, in particular, his link to the now bankrupt communications company, Global Crossings. The accusations saw Perle forwarding his resignation last month to his long-time friend and boss, Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

As a matter of fact, under these circumstances, Perle was left with no other choice but to tender his resignation in an attempt to silence his critics. But instead of getting rid of them, he was dragged deeper into a quagmire of allegations and accusations when Rumsfeld insisted that he remain a member of the DPB.

An article published in The New York Times on March 21, which claimed that Perle had advised Global Communi-cations "precisely because he has access to top officials", sparked off anew the whole series of allegations and counter-accusations.

Shrugging off the claims as utterly ridiculous, Perle arrogantly remarked: "I deeply resent the accusation that I am using public position for private gain. Whatever help I was to Global had to do with 30 years of experience in these matters, and nothing to do with the (DPB)".

Perle, who also served as foreign policy advisor during Bush's presidential campaign, had a reputation for being astute enough to see the invisible chains that interlinked the world of politics with that of business. His gradual climb to the elite and influential camp within the decision-making body in Washing-ton is quite remarkable. What has happened in Iraq right now is, in fact, the execution of one of Perle's strongly advocated policy plans.

In fact, Perle, alongside other influential neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, spelled out the administration's policy towards the Middle East. A proponent of pre-emptive strikes against countries, he is considered to be one of the principle architects of Bush's policy pertaining to Iraq.

Perle belongs to a group which believes in the ideology of a 'new American century', which outlines how the U.S. should carry out its foreign policy. "This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways."

Dubbed by Perle as a "distinguished group", its members included the likes of Henry Kissinger, James Schlessinger, Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley.

Perle provided an insight into the views held by the group when he justified the argument as to why the U.S. should first strike against what it sees as a potential source of danger. The case of Al Qaida is proof, said Perle.

"We can, of course, choose to defer action, to wait - and hope for the best…. That is what we did with respect to Osama Bin Laden. We waited. We watched. We knew about the training camps, the fanatical incitement, and the history of acts of terror…"

The result of such a wait and watch approach, noted Perle, led to the attacks of 9/11. "We waited too long and 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered."

Based on his reasoning with regard to Al Qaida, Perle opted to offer the same justification in carrying out a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

He strongly believes that the West has an obligation to eliminate the Iraqi President. According to him, there exists a "moral cause for removing Saddam's regime".

By providing a moral justification for waging a war against Iraq, Perle was of the opinion that the U.S. military intervention in the region would in no way be viewed by the Arab world as an invasion. Rather, Perle mistakenly thought that such an action would be commended.

"Would Saddam's removal set the region aflame? Fear that the Arab world will unite in opposition to Saddam's removal lures even thoughtful critics into opposition."

In fact, Perle sees the placement of a 'decent Iraqi regime' as one that will "open the way for a more stable and peaceful region". A democratic Iraq "would be a powerful refutation of the patronising view that Arabs are incapable of democracy".

It does not come as a surprise that this very argument has backfired on Perle since democracy cannot be imposed on any country through military resort. In fact, it seems patronising that others have to decide for Arabs how, when and whether they should practise democracy.

In fact, suspicions over here are raised over Perle's motives as a result of his connection with the Israelis. Hence, a shadow of doubt lingers when he stresses on something like regime change in Iraq or elsewhere bringing democracy to the Arabs.

Such an approach should not be advocated by an individual like Perle who way back in 1996 co-authored a study along with the senior ranking Douglas Feith in which he stated that Saddam's removal is "an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right". The study was presented to then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But this perspective is not limited to the Arab world. It has been extended to other countries such as Iran and North Korea.

"I believe that President Bush was not only accurate in his description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an 'axis of evil', but he was wise to use that memorable phrase."

For Perle, these are "some of the nastiest regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries" and Bush is certainly the 'most determined leader' the U.S. has had.

Perle does not view this as interference in other countries' internal affairs. As for the other members of the 'axis of evil', "we have to deal with all three and we'll deal with each in its own way. In the case of Iran, I think that place is going to fall apart because the mullahs are so unpopular. It may take a little while but it's going to happen. In the case of North Korea, we've got an obviously very delicate situation because of the damage that the North Koreans could inflict instantaneously on South Koreans. So we have to be sensitive [here]"

Perle believes that Bush's response following the 9/11 attacks to go after regimes that har