Paul Wolfowitz Quotes

As was true in Iraq and Libya, the United States has no credible government or leader able to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria if Assad is overthrown.

We cannot build a viable state with a country that is disintegrating into small pieces.

By 2007, Iraqi society had completely collapsed.

Trying to rebuild Afghanistan on the cheap has left the country in the hands of warlords and an impotent Northern Alliance puppet regime that runs Kabul and nothing else.

The United States must learn to rebuild states after overturning their regimes.

The chief threats to security come from failed states.

As the result of two successful campaigns, of the employment of an enormous force, and of the expenditure of large sums of money, all that has yet been accomplished has been the disintegration of the [Afghan] State … and a condition of anarchy throughout the rest of the country.

Failed states have become breeding grounds for conflict.

My belief is that when the military is used as the sole instrument of power, that never has a good outcome. If there's no one to take ownership and develop that failed state, human suffering can be even worse than that created by the conflict itself.

As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state.

To destroy the Islamic State, you have to fix Syria. You have to look at the reasons that created the Islamic State. This is a huge task.

By unwillingly robbing post-conflict nations of their most talented people, we in Europe are improving the odds these states fail, and feed the vicious circle of future conflicts.

A Pakistan that falls apart, becomes a failed state, would be of extraordinary danger to Afghanistan and to America.

Assad is a bad guy, but you may very well end up with worse than Assad.

Nobody should claim that the war [in Iraq] is over. But certainly it can be said that the regime is finished.

We see nation-states collapsing all around us: Libya, Syria, Iraq. We do not want another failed state in our neighborhood, which would rapidly turn into a stronghold for terrorists, as we have seen in Gaza. We do not want tunnels to suburbs of Tel Aviv or missiles pointed at Jerusalem.

Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful.

I think those who have wanted regime [of Bashar Assad] change have made a mistake.

On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.

When we toppled [Muammar] Gadhafi in Libya, I think that was a mistake. I think ISIS grew stronger, we had a failed state, and we were more at risk.

In late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it's the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

I think we can all agree [Bashar] Assad is a bad and evil actor, but I'm not so sure that we want the Islamic rebels to be in charge of Syria either.

I worry a little bit about - quote - "regime change." We haven't had a great deal of success with that in years. That's just really difficult.

We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing.

When you go into a country like Libya where a large chunk of the population wants the old regime back you could end up with a protracted civil war. That we're now in a stalemate was both entirely predictable, and predicted. That we're now relying on drones is disturbing. How vital can a cause be if we're not willing to risk American lives to defend it, and instead use robots and remote control operators? It gets me back to the larger feeling about the intervention - there's just not a compelling reason for us to be involved.