February 11, 2009 3:09 PM

Feith: Iraq Attack Was Preemptive

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  This segment was originally broadcast on April 6, 2008. It was updated on July 3, 2008.

The name Douglas Feith may not mean much to most Americans, but to students of the Iraq war and historians already studying it, he is one of the main architects.

From 2001 to 2005, Feith was under secretary of defense for policy and the No. 3 man at the Pentagon, intimately involved both pre-war strategy and post-war planning. His boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, called Feith one of the most brilliant individuals in government but he has also been a lightning rod for criticism and a magnet for blame.

As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported in April, in his memoir, which has been called the first insider account of decision making in Iraq, Feith defends much and apologizes for very little. But he offers some unusual insights about the path to war.



Asked why the United States invaded Iraq, Feith tells Kroft "The President decided that the threats from the Saddam Hussein regime were so great that if we had left him in power, we would be fighting him down the road, at a time and place of his choosing."

If Feith doesn't look or sound much like a warrior that's because he isn't; he's an intellectual, a hawkish, neo-conservative defense policy wonk, who occupied one of the top rungs on the Pentagon ladder, playing a key role in shaping the military's response to 9/11 and the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein.

Asked why the decision was made to go after Saddam Hussein after 9/11, when even then, the United States government realized Saddam didn't have anything to do with the attacks, Feith answers, "What we did after 9/11 was look broadly at the international terrorist network from which the next attack on the United States might come. And we did not focus narrowly only on the people who were specifically responsible for 9/11. Our main goal was preventing the next attack."

Kroft follows up, asking, "So you're saying you didn't think it was that important to go after the people who were responsible for it -- more important to go after people who weren't responsible for it?"

"No," Feith explains, "I think it was important to go after the people who were responsible for 9/11. But it was also important to disrupt the international terrorist networks and prevent whatever plans there were for follow-on attacks."

Kroft points out that using those standards, the U.S. could have invaded North Korea or Syria or Iran.

Feith concedes the point, but counters that Iraq was a special case, in large part, because of Saddam's record.

Feith says Saddam had already attacked Kuwait, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia; that he had defied the United Nations, evaded economic sanctions, used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and had the know-how, if not the wherewithal, to build a nuclear weapon. Feith believes the U.S. invasion was justifiable as an act of self-defense. In his book, he used the term "anticipatory self-defense."

"In an era where WMDs can put countries in a position to do an enormous amount of harm," he tells Kroft, "the old of idea of having to wait until you actually see the country mobilizing for war doesn't make a lot of sense."



Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 902 Comments
by spookietooth44 March 1, 2009 7:03 PM EST
I watched the segment a couple of times. I don't believe Mr. Kroft has all of his facts in order. Regarding the point Mr. Kroft made in the segment referring to Atta meeting an Iraqi spy in Prague pre-9-11, Mr. Kroft failed to mention any evidence there is available for the American people to see. He obviously wants people to believe him without any question. He say's, " the report has been widely discredited". But by whom? Partisan politicians? Blacked out intelligence reports? You mean there is actually blacked out parts of reports regarding this intelligence?

Mr. Kroft failed to tell the whole story regarding the Iraqi spy meeting with Atta in Prague. And on what date(s) CBS and Mr. Kroft are you referring to? You provide no actual dates this meeting has been discredited, but a general blanket to discredit any date. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Just like Dan Rather story, Kroft doesn?t have his facts straight.

The American people should see the evidence there is available. Now for the real story: http://www.thexreport.com/the_prague_connection1.htm
Reply to this comment
by gaetan4-2009 July 9, 2008 8:31 PM EDT
the usa will continue againt with his crusade against Muslim countries and also subcontract wars for Israel, a country which does not comply with UN resolution as the Bush administration and at the finaly the U.S. ''s debt to pay for these wars

good luck
Reply to this comment
by gaetan4-2009 July 9, 2008 8:29 PM EDT
the usa will continue againt with his crusade against Muslim countries and also subcontract wars for Israel, a country which does not comply with UN resolution as the Bush administration and at the finaly the U.S. ''s debt to pay for these wars

good luck
Reply to this comment
by atxchill July 9, 2008 11:23 AM EDT
Hey Dogsoul

If youre all about this war why dont you quit making these stupid comments and take your A#$ to the front line and help our our exploited military fight this rich mans war. Back up what youre saying.
Reply to this comment
by gzuckier July 8, 2008 5:41 PM EDT
you can be sure that the republicans have given up on the war when they start trying to tell us the democrats were behind it.

funny how they needed to attack Iraq because Al Gore said Saddam had WMD, but when it comes to global warming he''s a big fat liar.
Reply to this comment
by sbenassi July 8, 2008 2:43 PM EDT
Nice Tie, same color as the Israeli Flag, we went to war for Israeli interests.
Reply to this comment
by miro3408 July 8, 2008 12:15 AM EDT
It he wasn''t such a moron, he would be pathetic.
This was one of the sharpest minds in the Bush administration?...that figures.
Reply to this comment
by brundlefly76 July 7, 2008 11:16 PM EDT
I could not believe how poorly prepared Fife was for this interview. It is truly frightening this man was behind the decision to go to war. He even contradicted his own book on camera.

I totally understand the drive behind the decision to go to war - however, it was wrong, and congress was lied to, and Bush needs to be impeached.

That we have not even begun impeachment proceedings to date astonishes me.
Reply to this comment
by barocalto July 7, 2008 11:10 PM EDT
On July 6, 2008, the Associated Press reports that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program
Reply to this comment
by michael0004 July 7, 2008 6:59 PM EDT
Do you''''ll AGREE that if the ever popular liberal mantra ''''Bush lied'''' is true - then you ALSO agree that people such as Al Gore, John Jerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi and more ALSO lied with regard to Saddam''''s WMD program - is that what you''''re saying? Okay, but your point NOW is that at least the liberals didn''''t actually invade...

Even if I accept your premise, which I do not, it still does not explain the incompetency of the Bush Administration in the execution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Nor would one persons lie justify another. Bush lied and he and his administration is incompetent. No matter how much you want to spread the blame around, these are facts you can not evade.
Reply to this comment
See all 902 Comments
.
The Best of Andy Rooney on DVD. Order now! Order Now »
60 Minutes on Facebook