Perhaps Buckley has written on this elsewhere, but I see in his article the same problem I see with the anti-war left and anti-war right: no solution is offered on how best Saddam Hussein and his terrorist connections could have been handled. Just a denunciation of our policy. With Buckley at least it is well considered and respectful, but with the anti-war left and right (I can no longer tell them apart) it is usually accompanied by virulent anti-American rhetoric that makes one think that they oppose the war on terror because they really don't think America is worth saving. Obviously I do not include Buckley in this group.
Good observation, but it's even worse than that. Even forgetting about Saddam, and regardless of the merits of having invaded, the fact remains that right now Iraq is a naturally-wealthy Middle Eastern country with a power vacuum, where Al Qaeda is operating to wreak havoc and gain a foothold. They simply cannot be allowed to succeed. If we hadn't invaded this country already, there would be a good argument for establishing a military presence there now. Yet the left, and Buckley, in their "it's over/pull out now" criticisms seem not to actually care about doing anything about Al Qaeda. Or forgotten about Al Qaeda. Or something. I am sure (at least in Buckley's case) that can't be really the case, but there is a studied ignorance of the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq - and the obvious ramifications of that fact - which is maddeningly frustrating at best, downright irresponsible at worst.
Anyone who advocates a pullout of Iraq - a place where Al Qaeda is in force - needs to explain why they don't want to use our military to disrupt, capture and kill the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, because if they do not or cannot how can I but conclude that they are not interested in combating Al Qaeda?