Posted on 06/18/2005 4:58:41 PM PDT by CHARLITE
It's correct that there is political commotion mounting in opposition to the Iraq war. It is important to distinguish between two kinds. One, which is gaining attention, centers on misrepresentations. The so-called Downing Street Memo is cited. This records an exchange at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002, at which, it is said, the representatives of Mr. Bush made it clear that the president had resolved to proceed against Iraq irrespective of what the United Nations might do. Rejecting that account, the Bush people have said that the invasion was not finally planned until after the appeal to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 5, 2003.
The revisionist line is saying that the war should not have taken place and that many who gave it support were deceived by apodictic claims from the White House that the enemy had weapons of mass destruction.
That argument, gaining strength with the formation of an "Out of Iraq" congressional caucus, is one thing -- a reiteration of anti-war and isolationist sentiment. This is unrelated to reservations being expressed within the conservative community having to do with the need to rethink the claims of that war on our support.
Last week a conservative dissenter submitted an analysis to his colleagues. Several points were made.
After the success of the military enterprise, "two goals then took form. The first was to organize elections, giving Iraqis' tribal divisions an opportunity, acting together, to record their willingness to establish a self-governing republic. Once again, the results were gratifying. Some 80 percent of those who voted registered their endorsement of a constitutional regime change.
"The second goal has been to bring such order to Iraq as is required to effect the self-government the voters had endorsed. This objective has failed."
The failure, it is argued, cannot be redeemed by prospects that remain illusory. There isn't freedom of civil action in Iraq. There are areas in which order is routinely exercised, but there are no areas where Iraqis can assume safety from insurgent disruption.
In the past 12 months, our policies have been expediential: an attempt to effect such order as is required to permit a devolution of authority to Iraqis. The planted axiom has been that it is only a matter of time before the two great passions -- for stability and for political self-government -- converge into a new and viable Iraq.
That's not to be taken for granted. "No developments in the first half year of 2005 warrant confidence that these goals are being met, or even that they are predictable. The blame for this cannot responsibly be assigned to any one delinquent body. The United States military has performed with courage and perseverance. The Iraqis have never submitted to the insurgents, by whom they are nevertheless frequently overcome."
The critic persuasively argues that no commitment by the United States can be interpreted as extending beyond a reasonable allocation of the nation's resources. We could not, in March 2003, when the war began, be expected to fix a figure of soldiers dead and billions spent, after which geopolitical assumptions would be revised.
"As major military operations are measured," we are reminded, "our losses in Iraq are statistically exiguous, but they are nonetheless inordinate. The disposition to bear the cost and pain of human losses is necessarily measured by coordinate purposes and achievements. Our desire that the new Iraq, uninterrupted by insurgency, should proceed as a free and independent state is less than a commitment to which we are prepared to make sacrifices without measure."
The critic concludes: "The moment comes in every military venture, short of national self-defense, when responsible thought is given to the correlation of ends and means. One reason given for venturing into Iraq was the need to impress upon the nations of the world the decisive nature of U.S. intercessions. We effected this by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have dulled the example we set out to make by tolerating costs without corresponding advances on the strategic goal."
A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will then be contempt.
Char
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Only from the feeble minded Bill, only from the feeble minded.
My favorite Burke quote. We have only to recall the sacrifices of the past generation that kept the world from falling to Nazi and Japanese barbarism. Today, we're faced with an even bloodier breed of barbarians. The maintenance of civilization is a never-ending task and the calling of our time as that of generations before us, is to keep the torch of freedom lit for all to see that the oppressed of every land can find their way forward through the darkness to the light of freedom. For in their freedom lies the security of our own.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
As with many men in his decade, I fear Bill may be going mushy in the head. The last line in this missive is an example. If he can't call what we have seen from the Left since DAY ONE of this war "contempt" for the cause and the CIC, then I'd hate to see REAL contempt.....
prisoner6
Reality Check please!
My response is that Bill evidently lacks the fortitude of our soldiers in the field. Right is right whether it is yesterday, today, or a year from this moment.
Shame on him.
While perhaps the case could be made based on past contributuion Bill deserves further response, This column deserves no other response.
And .. with people like this .. with such name recognition in the conservative area .. it's digusting!
Nobody has any spine anymore. It's all about "can't we all just get along".
So .. I wonder what he thought of the 7000 men who were lost in ONE DAY for an island in the Pacific. Should we have said - that's too much and just brought our men home ..??
Thank GOD we had men of vision who understood what was at stake and stood their ground - FOR VICTORY.
You're exactly right, and this is one more time when William F. Buckley, Junior lives down to my opinion of him.
Yep Mr. Buckley, lets throw in the towel and instead fight these people in Florida, Wisconson, Texas, Colorado, Washington, New York...
Oh screw your nonsensical meanderings! Our President and Military are doing the right thing and you pansies can wet yourselves in the interum, the men in our military will be done when they are done.
Stick that in your pipe and poke it.
Darn right!
So what solution is being proposed here? Should the United States turn tail and run from Iraq because the costs have become too large?
To do do in the face of continuing terrorist attacks would tell everyone that the United States will not tolerate casualties. It would also mean that those casualities would have been in vain. Such a retreat would not "impress upon the nations of the world the decisive nature of U.S. intercessions."
It is perfectly reasonable to express doubts about whether the United States should have gone to war, as Mr. Buckley has. But that decision has been made, and cannot be unmade. Now the only question is how best to win this war.
What's more these young men and women understand that the enemy can not regroup, resupply and take the offensive when American men with painted faces and bad attitutes are climbing down their throats on a daily basis. Why Mr Buckley and his "conservative friend", Pat Buchanan?, can't understand that the absence of attacks on American interests and American soil outside the ME is directly related to this is something that escapes me.
Unlike the 60's and 70's, we have talk radio, Fox News, and of course, the internet. We have falling newspaper circulation, because a lot of people don't believe the tripe that's put on the front page.
We also face a threat from killers who would like nothing beter than to bring the war to our streets again. The lefty Anti-Americans are going to fail this time. If they start to win, the terrorists will bring it to our streets.
That said, the threat Bill points out is real, though.
Buckley doesn't grasp the big picture. We will be there ten years from now and for good reasons that should be obvious even to him.
That sounds great, but the American people aren't going to put up with this forever. Sure, freedom has a price, but what is the price for other peoples' freedom? Especially if freedom means a government where Islam plays a big role. There are 2.2 military deaths per day over there. Three and half more years of this will give us about 3000 more killed. At this rate, Bush's approval ratings will be in the low 30s and the Republican nominee will have no chance.
We need our "kicking butt in Fallujah" picture!!
Did someone spike the "conservative " punchbowl with wobbly juice?
And .. somebody on the right said recently .. if the terrorists manage to strike us again .. the blame will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the left - and a second attack could bring martial law; and other assorted restrictions to our way of life.
The democrats don't care .. they are in denial.
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.