Posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:07 PM PST by CometBaby
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Basically, I don't "care about" Iraqis per se either. What I care about is that the power/geographical base that is the nation-state of Iraq does not get taken over by another madman with megalomaniacal, expansionist designs and who causes us problems. (And who, like I believe Saddam was doing, uses his wealth and power to wage proxy war against us.) So, to prevent that from happening, I understand the necessity of an occupation force.
It would be even better, of course, to try to help the people create and then safeguard a reasonably sane consensual government. I understand that may not work, but so what? It's worth a shot, long as we're there.
Iraq is never going to be like the US.
Straw man. Who in the world wanted to make it "like the US"?
Let's leave it to the vaunted silent majority to take over as a voice of reason.
Let's be very clear about what you're talking about:
silent majority = millions of innocent civilians who wish to live in peace
"Let's leave it to" them = let's abandon them entirely to the attacks of terrorists, infiltrators, fascists, and zealot thugs
And, because... why? Because you're tired of seeing it on TV, right? Because you want to be able to start watching different TV shows with happier, wrapped-up endings?
The violent ones do speak for the rest of them - they always seem to.
Yes, they do always seem to, in the eyes of Westerners with this strange affliction I'm talking about. That's what I'm complaining about.
I must have missed the massive muslim protests against terrorism - (not in foreign countries - they mostly would not be allowed - but in America and Europe)
So let's stipulate there haven't been massive Muslim protests against terrorism in America and Europe. What's that got to do with whether we should abandon innocent Iraqis to fascists pull out?
It wil be the same in 10 years no matter what we do...
To some extent I agree with you, in that the control is largely in the hands of the Iraqi polity, they have the most influence.
But you're missing one big thing. What it's like there in 10 years depends hugely on whether we wimp out and just let some fascists take over for these short-attention-span reasons people keep bringing up....
It was not "the" reason. In any event, concerns over Iraq's WMD program preceeded Bush 43. You just have to read the statements from both parties in Congress and Clinton preceeding our attack on Iraq in 1998. You forget Secretary Cohen going on the talk shows with a bag of flour to demonstrate what a similar quantity of anthrax would do or the Cohen, Berger, and Albright presentation in Columbus about the dangers Saddam presented.
You left out some other relevant paragraphs from the Joint Resolution:
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Ah, yes. And you would know how? You yourself stated you had never been to Iraq. It's not ill-informed, it's based on historical data of past regimes within the region, unlike Victor David Hansen's delusional rantings. Buckley is right again, as he usually is. Within a generation, Iraq may not be a theocracy. But I can guarantee you it will no longer be a democracy, no matter how many Republicans close their eyes and wish it to be.
You are the one making sweeping generalizations and pronouncements. At least I have lived in the area for seven years and can speak from personal experience and knowledge. If history is such a guide and preordains the future, how do you explain a democratic Japan? I believe in free will and the ability to change. Nations need not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Buckley is wrong and so are you. I don't know what Iraq will be like in the future. Ultimately it is up to them. We are giving them the opportunity to make those decisions by the elimination of a tyrant who killed over 300,000 people and buried them in mass graves. I remain optimistic that given a choice, most people will choose freedom and democracy, which is the wave of the future. I also lived for two years in Communist Poland, including during martial law in the early 1980s. I returned in the late 1990s and saw the remarkable changes that have been wrought. None of us in early 1980s would have ever predicted such a transformation a scant decade later.
Yeah, but he doesn't disagree with conservatives on the most important foreign policy issue of a generation. He was right and in agreement with the things that mattered.
What Buckley has to say has to be taken seriously.
There were precisely two - fairly innocent - mentions of his age (posts 4 and 12), before Steve McKing in post 19, in what was even then mostly a straw man, complained about people basing their arguments on HE'S OLD. Since then the vast majority of the "HE'S OLD" posts were jokes designed to tease Steve McKing in reaction to his post. Which hasn't prevented a zillion and one straw-man-beaters gleefully complaining that those of us who disagree with Buckley are basing our entire argument on "HE'S OLD", which we aren't.
This straw man is beaten to death. Let it lie.
Wow. Why do you call their election a sham? Those people risked death (what have any of us ever risked to vote?), had a higher turnout than we have in recent memory, and you, from the comfort of your computer's internet connection, blithely call it a "sham".
Why?
What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region
I think you're wrong, but we shall see.
And now to top it all off, the esteemed William F Buckley is thrown under the bus because he dares to disagree with new 'conservatism'
What the hell does "thrown under the bus" mean? He wrote an article, and I and others disagree with the contents of that article, and we're saying so. That's not ok? Is this man infallible? For crying out loud.
Turkey.
Sorry to see Bill has gone over to the dark side of the force. Must be Alzheimer's.
Japan and Germany were homogenous countries.
What we are trying to do in Iraq is a MULTI-ethnic, DEMOCRACY. To have a democracy is difficult--to have a multi-ethnic democracy in the context of the kind of history Iraq has faced is nearly insurmountable.
What Buckley is saying is that if we're not willing to engage in the kind of war that we deployed against Germany and Japan, then we should consider some alternatives. Because the way we're doing it now will not get us to win. Bottom-line.
Possibly on the back of an envelope, eh? While travelling somewhere? But there's no other resemblance to Lincoln's masterpiece. Pity. When I was in college so long ago, I idolized Buckley.
Funny how even the way you presented your "WMDs were the reason" evidence makes it obvious that there were other paragraphs. You know, ones which didn't relate to WMDs. 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th for example. Those don't count?
How many would have been behind 'regime change' in Iraq simply for 'freeing' the Iraqi people?
I would've. I guess you're saying you wouldn't've. Ok then.
The relevant point is that majorities in Congress voted for the War Powers resolution. I don't know and you don't know what all of their exact reasons were for doing so. For all you know, maybe they did vote War Powers because they thought getting rid of a terror-aiding, brutal dictator was a worthy enough goal by itself, regardless of "WMDs". You don't know otherwise. It's on their list of reasons, isn't it? (The "Whereas" paragraphs...)
There isn't a nation in the world that is primarily muslim, yet with a good chunk of Christian, certainly not Jews, or in many cases other religions where persecution based on Islamic belief hasn't been an enormous factor.
The Koran says: [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah;
What do you suppose that statement, among many, many others, translates to for most muslims that take their Koran seriously?
Call me prejudiced, but to me it says what it says, namely that muslims are to fight non-muslims until everyone's muslim.
That there's a difference between Iraq and Japan? Sorry, but that observation, in itself, doesn't constitute an interesting point of any kind.
Many countries are different from each other. I don't know what you think we are supposed to be able to conclude from that.
I also agree that there's a large degree of probability in "success." But we just don't know
And I agree that we just don't know! But so what?? We never "know" what's going to happen! Why do you think it's interesting or relevant to point out that we don't "know" what's going to happen?
How spoiled are we anyway, that we expect to "know" with certainty what's going to happen in any violent conflict we are involved in?
It's as if Mr. Buckley feels a hurried need to summarize something.
Buckley is right, of course. Unfortunately, that makes him a heretic in some circles.
Interesting! I'll tell ya what, I'll pick up your airfare for you to go to Tokyo for a couple of days and then on to Bagdad to walk the streets there for a few, without any security? You must stay in hotels or otherwise find accomondations on your own for at least two nights.
I want pics! Deal?
Other than that, your line of reasoning "makes me grow weary!"
That is just one factor and not necessarily a controlling one. Singapore is a multi-ethnic democracy with five official languges. Indonesia is evolving into a democracy in a very multi-ethinc country and a history of past repression, i.e., the slaughter of the Chinese under Sukarno.
Japan had an imperial past. Germany had the failed Weimar Republic.
What we are trying to do in Iraq is a MULTI-ethnic, DEMOCRACY. To have a democracy is difficult--to have a multi-ethnic democracy in the context of the kind of history Iraq has faced is nearly insurmountable.
Why is it "nearly insurmountable?" We are a multi-ethinic democracy and had to overcome a civil war and slavery. You can look at the history of many democracies around the world and see similar examples of overcoming obstacles to achieve a democratic country. I don't share your pessimism.
What Buckley is saying is that if we're not willing to engage in the kind of war that we deployed against Germany and Japan, then we should consider some alternatives. Because the way we're doing it now will not get us to win. Bottom-line.
Buckley is entitled to his opinion. I think he is dead wrong.
There's democracy--the expression of individual will. And then there's something different, but related: the right to live in peace without outside interference. In the midst of their new-found status as a powerless minority, the frustrated Sunnis tolerate a Jihadist faction with Baathist support that seeks to initiate a civil war. So the Sunnis aren't entirely blameless here. The Shiites, on the other hands, are taking revenge. And why not? Not only have they been suppressed for so long prior to Coalition intervention, they have withstood suicide bombings, assassinations, etc. with a degree of noble tolerance in the past few years. And the Kurds--they're just waiting out to see whether life is so intolerable in Baghdad that they either resort to official independence, or more likely retain their autonomous status and in practice, live out a relatively independent existence.
BTW, the fact that much of the country is peaceful (which is true) doesn't mean that the country is not untenable, especially given the close correlation between ethnicity and geography. During the Civil War, the fact that the South was the only region in rebellion didn't mean that American was not in peril of being split up. When you have a sizable minority (20% or up) that tolerates the use of violent means for political ends, any country has a problem.
Pinging you to this thread, owf. You and Eric might (ha ha) have some thoughts on this. As for me, I had to sort out my hero worship of Bill Buckley (starting in college) a while back over something else, not this. But now we have THIS to address...
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.