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.
Or Buffy The Truth Slayer.
As long as someone as insane as Saddam had one cannister of sarin gas that was enough WMD to justify us from removing him. You don't wait for them to come to us to kill our innocents. Was 3,000 deaths not enough? The amount of sarin we have found thus far could kill millions. Sorry but I am sick to death about this not enough WMD to justify war. 9/11 was enough. Iraq harbored terrorists. Iraq was shooting in the no fly zone. Iraq paid families of suicide bombers. Does any of this register?'
LOL.. good analogy.
How beautiful! I should know better than to watch those tributes. I always cry. I watched this one twice.
At the least, in Iraq, we had an interest in keeping our word of consequences for defying a Ceasefire. Not standing up for it has been disasterous...Kobar, Cole, WTC II...
I learned it all here. http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Wootsey/freepertips.htm. It's real easy.
Is that link working for you? When I click on it, the page comes up blank. I know it's the right url. Hmmm...
It made the period at the end part of the link. Delete that, and it works.
I don't understand what all the (media engendered) hand-wringing is all about. You'd think we had a time machine and could change things...but we can't. No one (Pres. Bush included) knew what we know now...so what? The invasion decision is past--and cannot be changed. It's not just useless, but harmful, in my opinion, to be so focussed on it.
I wish Beuregard hadn't fired on Fort Sumpter either.
One less horrible dictator in the world and hopefully a friendly Arab state in the future.
LOL. I've never mentioned anywhere that I don't want us to capture OBL and he knows it. Intellectually dishonest freeping on his part, as another freeper mentioned.
What freaking tense do you conduct your life in? So you opposed the invasion in Iraq. Now zip your yap and let the USA take care of business.
You are helping out John Kerry here.
No answer from PETA about this. I guessed I was right. I still think back about when I saw this video for the first time. I got so mad, I wanted to sign up and fight that night!" - NordP
"My recollection is that the tape of the dogs being gassed was that it was an Al Qaeda tape, recovered in stuff from one of their Afghanistan houses." - patriciaruth
Too bad there's not an easily accessible link showing conclusively that this was being done by Saddam's guys. It might have been a useful tool to try to reach that segment of the looney left that is impervious to facts and logic. At the very least it could provide some amusement in debating them.
Just imagine their response if, after listening to their harangue about Abu Graib, you look them straight in the eye and angrily demand: "But what about the puppies?"
I am very aware of this...I TEACH history. There is no question where Europe stands on those regimes today. As is often the case, the majority was too afraid and cowed to fight the vocal minority who were in favor of "eliminating" unwanted minorities in Europe. Point taken. One of the great myths of World War II, for example, is that the Allies "liberated" France. The reality is that the Vichy government wasn't just a puppet government installed by the Germans -- it was a government that most people in France were perfectly content to live with.
The allies liberated Occupied France in Operation Overlord. Southern Vichy France was invaded by the Allies in Operation Dragoon in August 1944. The Paris police strike, which became the beginning of the uprising that concided with liberation of Paris, began on the same day... While much of the country had acceded to Nazi occupation/Vichy collaboration, it doesn't naturally follow that they didn't see the Allies as a liberating force.
It was 3000 too many. And Iraq wasn't behind the attack. Were there any Iraqis among the hijackers? I ask because I don't know. I DO know there were lots of Saudis. I DO know that Osama - according to all intelligence services -- plotted the thing - AND WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT OSAMA! We diverted our anti-terror troops to Iraq and let Osama get away.
When Jesse Jackson is losing an argument or getting irrationally angry, he uses the race card - his opponent is a "racist." When Dane is in a similar fix, Dane uses the "antisemitism" card -- his opponent is "anti-Israel."
Hollings defends his statements on Israel Column alleging Bush invaded Iraq to please Jews By LAUREN MARKOE Washington Bureau 05/19/04 "The State" -- WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings on Tuesday defended a newspaper column he wrote alleging President Bush went to war in Iraq to defend Israel and please American Jews. Hollings declined a request for an interview Tuesday, but he released a letter defending his comments and calling “ridiculous” any criticism of them as anti-Semitic. “The whole foreign policy of the United States is based on Israel? What kind of ridiculous statement is that?” said Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia’s Beth Shalom synagogue. “It’s anti-Semitic ... it’s dangerous.”
APPARENTLY DANE AGREES WITH HOLLINGS THAT IRAQ WAS INVADED TO HELP ISRAEL - - BECAUSE DANE SAYS THAT TO BE OPPOSED TO THE INVASION MEANS YOU'RE ANTI-ISRAEL. DANE -- get a life and get some sense into your head.
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.