This is astonishing, as many have pointed out. At no point does Wolfowitz admit the tragedy produced in part by his own judgments and advocacy. He appears to analogize the US role in authoring a war of 150K - 500K dead to a cat sitting on a hot stove. 1/5
nyti.ms/2OanClT
nyti.ms/2OanClT
I've argued that to call advocates of the Iraq war criminals (or worse) is misguided. They truly thought they were doing the right thing. In most cases (including--especially--Wolfowitz), they believed their own rhetoric + hoped liberation would create a new dawn for Iraq 2/5
But their refusal to interrogate their beliefs + commitments, the laziness of their analysis, and their refusal to prepare for and manage the postwar actually meet the legal standards for criminal negligence. Good intentions don't make up for irresponsible execution. 3/5
Until we call out & reputationally punish such misjudgment / mismanagement of foreign policy tragedies--not mistakes after rigorous debate, but analytical and policy negligence--we won't create incentives for new officials to make damn sure they get it as right as they can. 4/5
Which would mean: No opeds. No board seats. No distinguished professorships. No fireside chats hosted by famed journalists, or named & well-paid lectures. There is some accountability for midwifing disaster in most corners of managerial life--why not in foreign policy? 5/5
