Wolfowitz dismisses any role Strauss’s views might have on current US policy. In an interview with Sam Tanenhaus of Vanity Fair they said

Tanenhaus: Is there anything at all to the Straussian Connection?

Wolfowitz: It’s a product of fevered minds who seem incapable of understanding that September 11th changed a lot of things and changed the way we need to approach the world. Since they refused to confront that, they looked for some kind of conspiracy theory to explain it.

I mean I took two terrific courses from Leo Strauss as a graduate student. One was on Montesquieu’s spirit of the laws, which did help me understand our Constitution better. And one was on Plato’s laws. The idea that this has anything to do with U.S. foreign policy is just laughable.

Be that as it may, Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary who resigned his post as head of the House of Commons in protest against Blair’s Iraq policy, has written bluntly on Wolfowitz and Wolfowitz’s comment to Tanenhaus about the Iraq war decision, in a piece published in the International Herald Tribune on 4 June 2003: [Note 1]

… Why did [Rumsfeld] build a case for war on a false claim of Saddam’s capability?

Enter stage right—far right—his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, a man of such ferociously reactionary opinion that he has at least the advantage to his department of making Rumsfeld appear reasonable. He has now disclosed: “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on weapons of mass destruction because it was the one issue everyone could agree on.”

Wolfowitz is famously a regime-change champion. He was one of the flock of Republican hawks who wanted a war to take over Iraq long before Sept. 11. Decoded, what his remarks mean is that the Pentagon went along with allegations of weapons of mass destruction as the price of getting Secretary of State Colin Powell and the British government on board for war. But the Pentagon probably did not believe in the case then and certainly cannot prove it now.

Wolfowitz also let the cat out of the bag over the “huge prize” for the Pentagon from the invasion of Iraq. It has furnished an alternative to Saudi Arabia as a base for U.S. influence in the region. . . .

We [British] went to war for reasons of U.S. foreign policy and Republican domestic politics.


[Note 1] International Herald Tribune, 4 June 2003:

[Bruce’s Blog: 2003.06.04. Post: Bxx Short Link: Front Door Index: Permalink:]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.