Washington, D.C. (Rightcommentary): This was a painful video to watch - especially when Mr. Feith said “no one in the administration said that,” and then Steve Kroft runs the videos of one after the other of administration officials that had justified it on the basis of WMD. As someone who was in the Pentagon, in Policy, during the “post-conflict” reconstruction period, I don’t remember things quite the same way he does; in all honesty, that wasn’t my direct issue area either, so my recollection is based largely upon the way others have told the story to me. But for someone who lived through some of these events, I found little additional insights into the events I experienced by watching this interview.

Secondly, what exactly is the concept of “anticipatory” self defense? The very idea repudiates another long-standing “neocon” belief - deterrence. I don’t think it is fair for Feith to represent the neoconservative hawkish view is completely based upon concepts of “first strike” against threats. In the case of Saddam, the best case that Mr. Feith makes was that waiting was probably not in our strategic interest. As a strategist - as someone well studied in national security policy, history, and strategy - war is rarely delayed to the benefit of the powerful party (namely the US). However, I found Mr. Feith’s unapologetic justification of US action in 2003 largely unpersuasive. Further, I found Feith’s “I found no evidence in the record,” to be largely evasive - and it’s not clear to me he needed to be. Mr. Feith is clearly loyal to Secretary Rumsfeld, and has on many occasions written Op-Ed pieces defending his decisions. I understand that motivation - I too am still fond of the former SECDEF. However, it’s hard to tell a “tell all” book - without telling all, even the embarrassing stuff.

All in all, I’m still looking forward to reading War and Decision. If nothing else, the profits of which will benefit US soldiers and their families. There is quite a bit to be learned from individuals like Mr. Feith giving their personal accounts of the decisions that were made. However, I don’t anticipate that Mr. Feith’s book will have the same impact on foreign policy analysis as Kissinger’s “White House Years,” detailing the events of ending the Vietnam war, or Secretary McNamara’s Retrospective. I’ve read Gen. Franks, Ambassador Bremer’s book and Woodward’s books. All were quite interesting - I expect Feith’s will be as well, despite the allegations unadulterated revisionist history.

Quite honestly - the book I still really want to read is Secretary Rumsfeld. The man’s wit and personality will undoubtedly make for excellent reading.

One final thing - Mr. Feith’s statements about how US senior officials should behave, I can remember some painful excoriating meetings by Mr. Feith and his subordinates of some of my proposals… and being called some nasty names. I wished he had that outlook then - I might have fewer gray hairs now. I’m not offended by it - it’s all water under the bridge and an occupational hazard. That line, however, did bring a chuckle and a smile.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Stock Market Meltdown, Bank Failures, and Recession! Oh my!
• US and World Markets fall and Congress looks for blame.
• The Sting: Now that the bail out is law - will it work?
• Bail out on the bailout
• House bailout bill goes BUST! Now what? Recession? Economic Collapse? Wall Street Implosion? Mass Hysteria?