(Spell check next time!)
Posted on 06/29/2004 7:00:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”
Those words are William F. Buckley’s, from an article in yesterday’s New York Times marking Buckley’s decision to relinquish control of the National Review, the flagship journal of the conservative movement he founded 50 years ago.
Also out on the newsstands now, in The Atlantic Monthly, is an essay Buckley wrote describing his decision to give up sailing after a lifetime covering the world’s oceans and writing about it.
Mortality is the backdrop of both decisions, as the 78-year-old Buckley explains. In the Atlantic essay he describes his decision to abandon the sea as one of assessing whether “the ratio of pleasure to effort [is] holding its own [in sailing]? Or is effort creeping up, pleasure down? … deciding that the time has come to [give up sailing] and forfeit all that is not lightly done … brings to mind the step yet ahead, which is giving up life itself.”
There is certainly no shortage today of people saying the Iraq venture was wrongheaded. But Bill Buckley is Bill Buckley. And perhaps it is uniquely possible for a man at the summit or the sunset of life — choose your metaphor — to state so crisply and precisely what a clear majority of the American public has already decided (54 percent according to the latest Gallup poll): that the president’s Iraq venture was a mistake.
So with the formal end of the occupation now behind us, let’s take stock of the arguments for war and see whether any of them any longer hold up.
• The threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no stockpiles of WMD on the eve of the war nor any ongoing programs to create them. An article this week in the Financial Times claims that Iraq really was trying to buy uranium from Niger despite all the evidence to the contrary. But new “evidence” appears merely to be unsubstantiated raw intelligence that was wisely discounted by our intelligence agencies at the time.
Advocates of the war still claim that Saddam had “WMD programs.” But they can do so only by using a comically elastic definition of “program” that never would have passed the laugh test if attempted prior to the war.
• The Iraq-al Qaeda link.
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful — or as the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, “collaborative” — relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, there’s still a “debate.” Every couple of months we hear of a new finding that someone who may have had a tie to Saddam may have met with someone connected to al Qaeda.
But as in the case of WMD, it’s really mock debate, more of a word game than a serious, open question, and a rather baroque one at that. Mostly, it’s not an evidentiary search but an exercise in finding out whether a few random meetings can be rhetorically leveraged into a “relationship.” If it can, supposedly, a rationale for war is thus salvaged.
The humanitarian argument for the war remains potent — in as much as Saddam’s regime was ruthlessly repressive. But in itself this never would have been an adequate argument to drive the American people to war — and, not surprisingly, the administration never made much of it before its other rationales fell apart.
The broader aim of stimulating a liberalizing and democratizing trend in the Middle East remains an open question — but largely because it rests on unknowables about the future rather than facts that can be proved or disproved about the past. From the vantage point of today, there seems little doubt that the war was destabilizing in the short run or that it has strengthened the hands of radicals in countries like Iran and, arguably though less clearly, Saudi Arabia. The best one can say about the prospects for democracy in Iraq itself is that there are some hopeful signs, but the overall outlook seems extremely iffy.
Surveying the whole political landscape, it is clear that a large factor in keeping support for the war as high as it is is the deep partisan political divide in the country, which makes opposing the war tantamount to opposing its author, President Bush, a step most Republicans simply aren’t willing to take.
At a certain point, for many, conflicts become self-justifying. We fight our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place.
But picking apart the reasons why we got into Iraq in the first place and comparing what the administration said in 2002 with what we know in 2004, it is increasingly difficult not to conclude, as a majority of the American public and that founding father of modern conservatism have now concluded, that the whole enterprise was a mistake.
In any event, it is certainly true that it has been a harder road since the takeover, than most anticipated. The militants world wide seem to be going to Iraq to take their shot at the Great Satan. With luck, maybe most of them will achieve their final exit there, rather than here.
I take a backseat to no one in my respect and reverence for William F. Buckley. There are very few men of letters who emerged at the end of the 20th century who can make the claim that they A) largely succeeded in what they set out to do and B) that the world is better for it. Indeed, the public record in many ways makes such testimonials superfluous.
But many readers keep asking what I make of this nugget from the New York Times:
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
So here's what I think: I agree and I disagree. It is more than fair to say that if you thought the main reason to depose Saddam was to eliminate the threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction to then say it wasn't worth it now that we believe with the benefit of hindsight that they weren't there. I think that is what Mr. Buckley is saying.
But this is also like saying, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have not ordered the fish." In other words, it seemed like the right decision at the time. Some think that, given new developments, this appearance was wrong and others do not. I still think the war was the right decision. Though, obviously, if we knew Saddam didn't have a major nuclear program the debate would have looked very different and the tactics available for toppling him would have been very, very different. But, ultimately, the "if I knew then what I know now" point is an academic one.
And once you concede that point we are back to the fundamental debate(s) about the war and reconstruction. Should post-9/11 America give tyrants like Saddam the benefit of the doubt in a climate of uncertainty? Was the WMD threat the only reason toppling Saddam was in our interest? Should opposition to the war justify obstruction of the reconstruction? Etc? Etc?
Guess we should have waited just a bit longer; until Saddam had his missile delivery systems in place as per his secret meetings with Kim Sung il; and his chemical and biological agents returned to Iraq from their temporary storage in Syria. . .or waited a bit longer until he had in his hands even some nuclear surprises he was working towards as well.
I don't get it. . .this war is horrible; but can only imagine the outcome; had we just waited; and waited. . .for Saddam to comply with the UN regulations and to cooperate with UN inspectors.
Oh, wait; that might have taken longer - perhaps until hell freezes. These folks were getting rich; while they pretended to be serving a higher cause here. Taking money meant for poor/starving Iraqui children - well, they surely had a good reason, to do that. . .like getting rich beyond their dreams.Yep. . .just forgot that; but whatever. . .they should have waited anyway; right?
I don't know; is it just 'brain wiring' that determines which side of debate is 'right' or something else?
Oh yes, they just took the money to make it seem like they were friends.
"I'm posting this because those freepers who call me some kind of traitor for opposing the invasion of Iraq are now going to have to add Buckley (along with Tom Clancy and a number of military brass) to the list."
The time for opposing the invasion is history, we invaded and removed a blood thirsty want-a-be "king".
Showing we were willing to fight in little Grenada, support resistance in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and the thing that pushed the Soviets over the edge: Their equipment and doctrine being utterly destroyed in Iraq (yes, that Iraq).
You wish, Mom, you wish. That flight suit really gets under your skin! LOL!
Sorry, I thought Torie's reply was dead solid perfect.
Pushing 80, Buckley has given up sailing, and given up supporting efforts and projects which he may never live long enough to see completely successful. In other words, he no longer can summon the physical or emotional strength required to actively participate in either, or both. I have no problem with him expressing what are after all his heartfelt opinions or his golden-years disabilities.
That's not what David Kay said in his report. Not to mention many people (like the U.N. the UK, Russians, etc. believe the weapons may be in the Bakka Valley, or Syria...same thing).
Advocates of the war still claim that Saddam had “WMD programs.” But they can do so only by using a comically elastic definition of “program” that never would have passed the laugh test if attempted prior to the war.
Laugh test? Many Iraqis, Kurds, and Iranians are not laughing. Because they're dead. Simply put, there is substantial evidence of programs, and munitions, among other banned items being found every day (i.e mustard gas rockets, sarin artillary shells, long range rocket motors, etc.).
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful — or as the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, “collaborative” — relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, there’s still a “debate.”
Well, the author can debate with Zarqawi, al-Islam, all the foreign jihadis in prison, and that have been killed. Not to mention Atta, and his video at the Prague airport with the Iraqi spy/diplomat/general al-Tikriti (?). Or shiek Rachman, Ramsey Yousef, Salmon Pak, (and whats that other terrorists name?). All associated with al-Qaeda.
All is not lost with Josh...
At a certain point, for many, conflicts become self-justifying. We fight our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place.
Josh Marshall does come close to getting it. If only two more synapes had fired at the same time...
5.56mm
Uh, oh. AC. FR's resident Democrat butt-girl is snugglin' up to you.
That, alone, ought to tell you something's wrong.
Baloney. Rumsfeld himself predicted in March of 2003 that Iraq would fall in "days or weeks."
Absolutely true!!!
The demanded WMD and AQ-Iraq meetings do constitute a mock debate, because those facts are almost completely irrelevant to the ultimate problem and its solution.
They might be correlated to the degree of the problem, but they do not constitute the problem.
They were manufactured standards from the day Bush mentioned them, and they've been inflated beyond belief by those who wish to use it as the ultimate proof that war was unneccesary.
Whether anyone was caught on tape in a hotel lobby, what number of kg of WMD material are ultimately found within Iraqi borders or elsewhere...it makes almost no difference to the true level of the real problem.
To me it comes down to this, as it has from Day 1....ultimately, are OBL and Saddam (and Arafat and Iraq and Assad...) different independent entities and problems? Or ultimately are they part of the same problem with the same underlying origins. The problem is the stew of Middle East radicalism, oppression and tyranny and the immediate and large threat it suddenly was shown to be on 9/11, and more largely it's part of the residual tyranny that the world has known and which has been stamping on individual freedom since time immemorial until very recently, but is now about to possess very dangerous weapons. N Korea is a variant, but ultimately part of the same problem.
The object at this level is not to follow the traditional rules to the letter like it is in a legalistic peacetime domestic realm...the object is to survive....this is a world war. That's apparently too un-PC to mention now so Bush tried to justify it in more conventional digestible terms.
We are dismantling a mainly regional network of dangerous nutjob illegitimate govt's and doing whatever it takes. These are things that have been in motion for a long time, and whatever particulars Saddam had or didn't have in his basement don't change that a bit.
Where are all the WMD's gone?
(Spell check next time!)
Not "antisemitism" for a second. Anti-Israel. Bob Novak is a very anti-Israel Jew. And I'm just trying to understand why so many devout anti-Communists are against this war. It doesn't make sense.
But let me guess. You predicted that US military forces would conquer Iraq, spend a over a year pacifying the country and still have less than a thousand KIA. On the way, they would kill Uday and Qusay. Abu Nidal would bite the dust by Iraqicide, Abu Abbas would be captured and die in custody, Ansar al Islam would be proven to be linked with Al Qa'ida, hundreds of banned weapons would be found, hundreds of thousands massacred in mass graves would turn up and Saddam would be sitting in a hole rotting.
Was that your prediction?
1) Bushbots: We have always been a Nation of immigrants. They do the jobs Americans won't do...
For the first time since Bush was elected President, the amnesty proposal forced an evalution if I could vote for G.W. This wasn't about money. It wasn't about campaign finance, an issue that WILL arise again. The Supreme Court no more ended that fight than they did with the verdict on abortion. Amnesty directly affects national security.
Then the Libs started attacking his national guard service. Then came the Madrid attacks. Indecision ended. I'm voting for G.W. and will not be holding my nose by doing so.
I disagree with the President on his amnesty proposal but have since understood his side. G.W.'s conclusion is the political will is not there to have a mass deportation. He knows Fox has no intention of putting illegal immigration to an end. Mexicans flood to our country because their own economy is in shambles. His solution is not unlike his approach to the the middle east.
He believes that by implementing this proposal we can firm up our knowledge of whom resides in this country at the same time allow easier flow of funds into the Mexican economy. With the improvement of their eceonomy, the less need to invade ours. As he believes freedom is the key to conquering terrorism, he believes this strategy is the key to end illegal immigration.
Like I said, I disagree with him that this is the means to solve the problem but can understand his argument.
2) Bushbots: It's for our own good! Remember 9/11,..Remember 9/11,...Remember 9/11,...Remember 9/11,...
Yes, remember broken bodies and innocent blood shed.
I suppose he could round up everyone into concentration camps instead?
Fact remains that the Patriot Act allows for a check to balance those powers.
3) Bushbots: Strong super-companies are GOOD for America. There's PLENTY of jobs out there,...TONS of jobs,..REALLY,...
And if there aren't, make your own. Fail to understand why it is traitorous for companies to remain competitive in a global market.
4) Bushbots: It was for the (Iraqi)CHILDREN,...WMD? What WMD? We never said no such thing,..
Numerous reasons were stated to necessitate this action. Among them the possibility of WMD's, humanitarian, domino effect of freedom and violation of UN agreement.
WMD's did and likely still DO exist, btw. You'd be better served worrying about what happened to them then believing the propoganda they never existed when they keep accidentally popping up in Iraq.
5) Bushbots are just like the democrats with clinton: they will destroy their conservative values to support him; actually losing what it meant to be a conservative to get him elected.
Uhh...No. Democrats said black was white, good was evil, sex wasn't sex. Conservatives stand up, tell you what they disagree with, tell you if they believe you are wrong, but don't throw a hissy fit because the President doesn't agree 100% of the time.
Bush takes away our freedoms with the "patriot" act,...
Bushbots: It's for our own good! Remember 9/11,..Remember 9/11,...Remember 9/11,...Remember 9/11,...
Bush allows corporations to move overseas and still sell to America with no penalities,...
Bushbots: Strong super-companies are GOOD for America. There's PLENTY of jobs out there,...TONS of jobs,..REALLY,...
Bush takes us into a war with a country which was NO THREAT to us,...
Bushbots: It was for the (Iraqi)CHILDREN,...WMD? What WMD? We never said no such thing,..
Bushbots are just like the democrats with clinton: they will destroy their conservative values to support him; actually losing what it meant to be a conservative to get him elected.
Thankfully, more and more people are finally starting to see the truth about this "compassionate" conservative.
I think Buckley is wrong in this case. However, your ignorance of the history of conservatism is appalling. If you are a conservative of almost any stripe but the radical religious right, you owe an enormous debt to Bill Buckley.
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.