Lawrence Wilkerson

Wilkerson made comments in a radio interview in November 2005 that the Vice President had decided that the Third Geneva Convention (regarding treatment of POWs) would not apply to "al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees"[6] and that the February 2002 White House memorandum regarding the "Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees" contained a loophole designed to avoid applying the Geneva convention to the detainees. According to Wilkerson, the phrase "the detainees (should) be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva"[7] was a way to appear to play by the rules while in reality, the "military necessities" would always overrule concerns about the plight of the detainees.[6] Wilkerson said that this was result of Cheney and Rumsfeld working in collaboration to undermine the standard decision-making process of the White House (which included his superior, Colin Powell).

And so what I'm saying is, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defense moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise.

— Lawrence Wilkerson, BBC Radio 4, November 25, 2005

At a congressional hearing recorded on C-SPAN in June 2005, he gave his analysis of the Iraq war's motivation: "“I use the acronym OIL,” he said, “O for oil, I for Israel and L for the logistical base necessary or deemed necessary by the so-called neocons – and it reeks through all their documents – the logistical base whereby the United States and Israel could dominate that area of the world.”" He said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “has our president wrapped around his little finger” and that Bush has been “mesmerized” by Sharon.[8]

During an October 19, 2005 speech at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson criticized the intelligence community which compiled the Iraq War intelligence:

I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth

— Lawrence Wilkerson, New America Foundation, October 19, 2005[9]

Wilkerson did a full-length audio commentary for the documentary Why We Fight. This film won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.[10]

In a 2006 interview Wilkerson said that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on February 5, 2003—which laid out a case for war with Iraq—included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."[11] Wilkerson said in 2011 that his preparing of the presentation was "probably the biggest mistake of my life", he regrets it, and that he regrets not resigning over it.[12]

He stated in the 2006 interview that neither CIA Director George Tenet nor the CIA analysts that gave Powell information on mobile biological laboratories explained that there were disputes about the reliability of the informants who had supplied the information—information which was used in the speech. Wilkerson also agreed with the interviewer that Cheney's frequent trips to the CIA would have brought "undue influence" on the agency. When asked if Cheney was "the kind of guy who could lean on somebody" he responded, "Absolutely. And be just as quiet and taciturn about it as-- he-- as he leaned on 'em. As he leaned on the Congress recently-- in the-- torture issue." Wilkerson stood by his earlier description of Cheney and Rumsfeld as having formed a cabal to hijack the decision-making process: "I'm worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we've designed than I would a diktat from a dumb strongman... I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators."

Wilkerson said in an interview on the BBC's Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney.[13][14] The reported offer consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government.

Wilkerson is one of the people interviewed in the 2007 documentary film No End in Sight, a film that is very critical of the way the occupation of Iraq was handled in the spring of 2003.

In April 2007, Wilkerson was featured in VPRO's Tegenlicht Dutch documentary The Israel Lobby. He said that "the Jewish lobby in America" and "AIPAC in particular" played an outsize influence in the run-up to Iraq war. Wilkerson noted Jewish officials such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle in particular. [15]

The Associated Press reports that on March 16, 2009, Wilkerson wrote on The Washington Note blog that he knew from briefings as a Bush administration official that it was soon recognized that some of the captives were innocent.[16][17] According to the Associated Press summary, Wilkerson said the Bush administration was willing to continue to detain innocent men who might nevertheless be aware of useful information about the Afghanistan "mosaic":

It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance. ...sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified.

Wilkerson stated in 2009 that Guantanamo Bay military prison continues to hold innocent men.[16] Wilkerson said that he felt compelled to come forward after hearing former Vice President Dick Cheney state that President Barack Obama's plans to close Guantanamo made the public less safe.[18]

Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Guantanamo spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific observations.[16] According to an Associated Press paraphrase of Gordon's statement, he said that, "dealing with foreign fighters from a wide variety of countries in a wartime setting was a complex process."

In a March 20, 2015 CNN interview, Wilkerson said,

I would say very, very candidly that Iran is probably the most democratic country in the Persian gulf region right now. My Republican colleagues will boil their eyes at that, but it is the most democratic country. It's a theocracy, no question about it. But it is possessed of the democratic tendencies that far outweigh those of, say, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or even Egypt.[19]

Wilkerson has shown concern over the Trump Administration's foreign policy behavior,[20][21] particularly on Iran.[22]

On April 2018, Wilkerson explained in an interview with Sharmini Peries of the Real News Network, why he (Wilkerson) believes the U.S. president "can do anything he pleases with regard to the armed forces of the United States anytime he pleases." That reason, says Wilkerson, "is because the American people are apathetic" and "their representatives in the Congress are… cowards" who, but for "few exceptions like Mike Lee and Bernie Sanders and some of the others," will not do anything to restrain such exercise of presidential power. He also goes on to state that commercial interests related to oil and gas is why the U.S. would intervene in various places overseas including the Middle East and Afghanistan; and that other reasons for justifying U.S. intervention "is just lying to the American people" and that the U.S. has a long history of lying to justify intervention, giving the examples of the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars.

In September 2018, Wilkerson further said that the neoconservative agenda regarding war on Syria and Iran also threatens conflict between the U.S. and Russia and the long-term bogging down of U.S. military forces in major conflict. Wilkerson states, "My serious concern is about the way U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton and others in their positions of power now are orchestrating a scenario whereby Donald Trump, for political reasons or whatever, can use force in a significant way against Assad and ultimately Iran, because Iran's forces are there, and ultimately against Russia, because their forces are there in Syria, and this is most disquieting.” The neoconservatives' military plan, argues Wilkerson, is "a recipe for" the U.S. military being in the region for "the next generation" with significant force "mired even deeper in this morass" and with the "day after day" attrition of dollars and lives.[23][24]