William F. Buckley, Jr.: Thinking Out Iraq ... To withdraw, or not?

A wise young thing writes provocatively. He wants to know when the serious right wing in America — National Review, and critical legislators and commentators — is going to come out and say what he thinks, that we were wrong to go into Iraq.

At a dinner meeting in New York last week of fourteen urbane and weighty conservatives, the host asked the question, How many of you would have voted to go into Iraq if circumstances were as advertised? The vote in favor of intervention was unanimous. The next question was, "Given what we now know, are you glad that we intervened?" The vote here was pretty well split, in the neighborhood of 50-50. My young correspondent puts it this way, "I rue my earlier support for the invasion." And goes on to ask, "When will we hear on the question from you — from senior U.S. analysts on the conservative side of the fence?"

He is pretty withering in his language. He writes about National Review: "To the extent that one can discern NR’s position, it is something like 'Bush should keep doing whatever it is that he's been doing so far and hope for the best.' But for how long? At what point can we call the Iraq venture a success (or a failure) and leave, NR doesn't say. The editors seem to be saying, 'Get back to us in a month; maybe by then we'll have made up our minds.'"

His demands are quite direct. "It is amazing that NR cannot establish any criteria for when it would be appropriate to leave Iraq." It is understandable that he should end, "My gloom gathers daily."

Professor Harvey Mansfield was at the dinner meeting, and that learned powerhouse, in his characteristically soft-spoken way, wondered that so little attention was being paid, by restive conservatives, "to the matter of honor." Honor is an obligation enforced by integrity. Question: Was the retreat from Vietnam dishonorable?

But attenuation sets in. At a point in 1961, President Charles de Gaulle reasoned that the French government had done as much as could reasonably be expected of it to enforce the sovereignty of the French state and guarantee the safe survival of its citizens in Algeria. If one acknowledges that, in human action, prudence can sometimes trump honor, and go even further to say that it should do so, then the question before the house is: When? And is it possible to explicate what are the relevant criteria? Is it true, as my correspondent writes, that "no modern state has ever succeeded in suppressing a guerrilla movement when there is some degree of popular support? The French in Algeria, the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, the Russians in Chechnya, the Japanese in China, the British in Ireland, and the U.S. in Vietnam have all tried it and failed."

Of course it is a responsibility of conservatives, associated with the ascendancy of President Bush, to weigh the consequences of tergiversation. What concerns a proud nation is not only moral obligations, but the consequences of a failure to stand by them. In another perspective, to bargain with the criminal is not only to temporize with dishonor, but also to embolden the criminal in his powers to threaten and to intimidate and to extort.

Such considerations argue in the abstract for seeing it through in Iraq. But they do not advise us when the moment should come to say that honor has to give way to a recognition that success is not in sight and not at any point in the future predictable.

Only Bush, not his critics, can coalesce these considerations. This isn't merely because he has up-to-date information. It is that the force of the leader is required in order to escape the conundrum with confidence. What my correspondent torments himself with in his sleep — How can we keep it up? The Iraqis have made it impossible to succeed. We accomplish nothing more than a directer display, day by day, of the bootlessness of our venture — only Bush can bestride, as De Gaulle did his own impasse. The force of any argument for disconnection requires the prestige and dominance of the leader. There is no point in arguing for withdrawal, unless Mr. Bush beckons us to do so.

A reading of neo-con philosophy about the ME leads to the conclusion that we invaded Iraq not to deny terrorists sanctuary (there are dozens of other places that were friendlier to them) but to permanently change the map. Sadam's support for terrorists could not stand alone as the reason. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran all provided higher levels of support than Iraq. None of these countries though had a Sadam, or UN resolutions that could be used as quasi-legal justification against them, or the central location of Iraq. Iraq was simply the best target option for us to create the desired change.

Once that is understood the next step to acknowledge is that we will not leave Iraq for decades. Iraq is now a territory from which we can project power throughout the region without having to seek permission from reluctant allies and without having to undertake a six months build-up of forces.

We are not winning in Iraq. We are not losing either. The war is currently bogged down in stalemate. Progress has been made but no place in the country is absolutely safe. And, comparisons to 1945 Germany and Japan are false. Those nations had been reduced to rubble in both the literal and figurative sense. Their populations had been pounded into full submission (with truly rare exceptions) by years of all out war and carpet bombing of civilian centers. They were ready for any force that would impose safety and order. None of this is true in Iraq.

There is a logic to disengagement short of withdrawal.

We have given the historically warring factions of Iraq a common enemy if not a common goal. As long as we are there in the numbers that we are today the Shiites, Sunnis, Baathists, Turkmen leaders all have the luxury of winning support within their ranks by attacking us. This does not suggest unity among these factions, although the Turkmen are associated with the Sunnis. (And, because of their anti-Kurd activities, the Turkmen receive aid from Turkey, even though there is no tribal connection. This aid from Turkey to the Turkmen finds its way into the hands of the Sunni and is used against us.)

Once we announce a shedule for down-sizing these factions will be forced to readjust their sights with attention given to securing the biggest slice of post-occupation Iraq. This would have the effect of moderating the Shiites, who have the most to gain. Additionally, Turkey would need to rethink its support of the Sunni-associated Turkmen.

Iran....with the US in Iraq in force Iran has no fear of an anarchical neighbor, a chaos next door that they cannot afford. There are significant internal and exiled dissident Iranian groups that would find feasible operating room within a chaotic Iraq from which they could stage and support insurrection within Iran. A US draw down of forces would make Iran face the consequences of continued support across the border.

Syria could be dealt with through the threat that the forces pulled from Iraq duties could be re-directed toward Damascus. The establishment of RCT sized "Fort Apache" style FOBs, removed from the population centers and into the barren western desert would enforce that threat, while at the same time removing our troops from the areas where they are most vulnerable. This last is already underway.

The alternatives to a limited but sizeable withdrawal seem to be endless stalemate or following the French model. Neither of these options seems palatable.

You can't live in peace with someone who wants to slit your children's throats.

Exactly! Even when we try and help these people they think we have alterior motives. (Indonesia Clerics telling us to leave etc.)

There is never going to be peace with these extremists. I'd just as soon it is there country bing demolished, in order to rid ourselves of this threat to civilization, as ours.

This is the very best way we can assure ourselves of the least amount of innocent American casualties. They started it, I am never going to feel sorry for them. If we don't fight them over there we could lose our wives and children to one of their cowardly terrorist attacks on our own soil.

They need to go meet Allah, as quickly as we can send them there. Any left winger that does not realize this is not admitting the truth.I for one do not want to have to try and explain another 911 to my grandchildren. Once was to much.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.