Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake

The Hill ^ | June 28, 04 | Josh Marshall

[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.

[moodyskeptic]

Buckley's foolish to insist that there are no WMDs to be found. Saddam had years to squirrel them away, and a full year of slow build-up to the war while Bush allowed the UN to grasp for relevancy.

Only a complete idiot would not send his illegal weapons out of sight given this advance warning. Saddam knew his soldiers wouldn't put up much fight, he'd seen the 91 war. Murderous dictator or not, he knew the score.

WFB apparently has no respect whatsoever for Saddams cleverness. How did Saddam manage to hold 25 million Iraqis in abject terror? His good looks?

[Chgogal]

Traitors! It is amazing how somethings just never change.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Joe...read his other early posts too and should you feel it incumbent upon yourself to stand up for churchy

How come you call him churchy, but when you're called neopardons you get mad? Oh, and that is still no reason for the poster to call him names and attack him. That's just a weak excuse honey. He didn't write this article, he just posted it.

[Joe_October]

We haven't found WMDs? We have found some, but more to the point: We haven't found the stockpiles that Iraq SHOWED the U.N. Where'd they go, and can you prove it?

Very good point. The only thing we know for sure is the Press isn't going to show us the truth. It's against their interest to report that weapons have been moved or hidden. Since I can't be there to see them myselves and they won't report the truth, I err on the side of killing the people who would behead me and mine. Just my own personal thing there.

[nopardons]

It's faster than typing churchillbuff,which he isn't and it doesn't change his nick.

And Joe,following me to another thread is considered to be STALKING.

Are you really THIS enamored of me,lusting silently in the dark and doing the one handed typing bit?Well, get over it...I' a VERY happily married woman,with NO interest in you at all.

[tarheelswamprat]

re: "+ genocide (not to mention "puppycide" -- did you see the films of nerve gas being administered to the Beagle puppies, showing their slow and twitching deaths? --'course it never got PETA's attention...oh no!)"

Do you happen to have a source cite for this? I'm unfamiliar with this story and would appreciate any info you might have.

Thanks!

[Bonaparte]

Back when Reagan first came into office and announced his determination to end soviet communism, almost everybody -- right, left and center -- said it couldn't be done. Back when Regan announced SDI, it met with howls of derision from the left and even from the right. They were wrong, Reagan was right. And Bush is right today. To stop islamic terrorism, we must bring freedom and opportunity to the people of middle eastern countries. We must give them something to live for, so they won't look for something to die for. One way or another, all those regimes are going to have to change -- to secular constitutional republics with individual rights, religious tolerance and economic opportunity for all.

[lepton]

You forgot France. :) Austria and Ireland too. West Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands were 50-50.

Of your list there, I'll concede Ireland - though it was rather dominated by the U.K...the others were mixed or secular.

Point is, as you noted, the dominoes do fall, and today, instead of being a rarity, democracy of some sort is the rule.

[wardaddy]

You're not a traitor CB.

You're just wrong on this one like WFB.

It's sad....like him, you are pretty swooft on some things.

oh well,

regards.

[Joe Hadenuf]

And Joe,following me to another thread is considered to be STALKING.

Don't flatter yourself. That wasn't even posted to you on the other thread. LOL!

Wishful thinking eh?

[bd476]

Bonaparte said: "Back when Reagan first came into office and announced his determination to end soviet communism, almost everybody -- right, left and center -- said it couldn't be done.

"Back when Regan announced SDI, it met with howls of derision from the left and even from the right."

"They were wrong, Reagan was right."

"And Bush is right today."

"To stop islamic terrorism, we must bring freedom and opportunity to the people of middle eastern countries."

"We must give them something to live for, so they won't look for something to die for."

"One way or another, all those regimes are going to have to change -- to secular constitutional republics with individual rights, religious tolerance and economic opportunity for all."

Thank you Bonaparte! :)

[Joe Hadenuf]

LOL!

Oh, this is great!

[RinaseaofDs]

Laughable statements all, from Buckley, Will, and anyone else that opposes the war.

I think what we don't know about all the good and valid reasons why we went to war would fill volumes. We're finding Iraqi WMD hardware in a half dozen countries at this point.

By the way, Qaddafi didn't just decide to come clean because he's getting older. He came clean for reasons that were both compelling to him, and largely unknown to the rest of us.

It's positions like Will's and Buckley's that will ensure we won't have the sack to face down NK and China. That VietCong general was right, the way to defeat the US Army is to attack through their televisions.

[lonevoice]

With posts like that I'd say it's time to change your name to: goodreasonstovoteforkerry

Excuse me? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Grampa Dave]

You posted the ultimate truth about churchillthetroll:

"You're just an anti-Bush troll that has managed to survive for some reason. Every post I've ever seen you make is bash Bush, "Bush bad", "Bush sucks", "Bush will lose", "We need to warm up to President Kerry", etc, etc, etc.

ChurchHilltheBushhating Troll, "You are a Moby Troll pretending to be a conservative. You are a backstabber. Your posts show that you never miss an opportunity to play the backstabber of our president!

Et Tu Brute, the Churchill Troll backstabs GW again!

Churchill Troll, do you get paid for each back stab by the post or the word?

[nopardons]

Flatter myself?Not bloody likely,pet;that's part of YOUR delusoin.You showing up,Joe,is akin to a filthy,smelly,addle pated bum crashing into one,whilst walking out of Saks.:-)

[nopardons]

Great post!

Unfortunately,like Dickens,I suspect he gets paid by the word.

[Joe Hadenuf]

And Joe,following me to another thread is considered to be STALKING.

Tell me, how could I be stalking you on another thread when I didn't even post to you on that thread? Hehehe. How is that possible?

I would say you are the one that slightly delusional here. LOL!

[itsahoot]

I'm posting this because those FReeper 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.

All the old senile conservatives go mush headed aka the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater.

[itsahoot]

I like Buckley but he is just wrong on this.

He was wrong on the Panama Canal too. It will only get worse, unless he becomes a recluse.