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 ...
I agree. Whatever credit Buckley deserves for energizing the modern conservative movement, I'm afraid age has softened his head, much as it did Barry Goldwater's.
I hope I don't go squishy like that when I get to be a geezer. But there may be physical changes in our minds that are beyond our control.
It is far too soon to "acknowled[ge] defeat." And what does Buckley have to say of positive developments spun off of our invasion Iraq? Such as Libya's giving up its nuclear weapons program?
(Is Buckley even aware that Libya's SECRETLY produced nuclear weapons components have all been dismantled and shipped to Tennessee? And if he is aware, does he think this would ever have happened without our having invaded Iraq?)
Agreed, homogeneity isn't a controlling factor. But don't you think that having a foreign force there is problematic and complicates things just a little? That's what Buckley is saying. He implies suspicion of social engineering, and when things go awry, who gets blamed but us... because by going to war, we are the ones who started this kind of social engineering. Japan and Germany didn't have an active insurgency that's approaching its 4-year mark. Indonesia never had a foreign force guiding them towards democracy.
Again, Buckley says in the article that the prevailing strategic postulates--like our belief in freedom--ought to be sustained, and are being sustained in latin American and much of Asia (to include Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, etc). But Buckley also says that Iraq may be a particular example where things don't work. And the way things are headed (i.e. Sunnis breaking off political talks with Shia and Kurds, continued disappearance of mixed neighborhoods in Shia-Sunni-Kurdish border areas, resulting homogenization of the country into 3 ethnic-based areas, etc.), the tactical picture does not look good.
He's saying that we can preserve our strategic mission while sustaining a tactical loss--albeit a big one in the form of Iraq.
LOL. Dude that is funny. Good riddens to that person. Goodbye!!!!!! DU is right around the corner.
Buckley isn't as resistant to facts as a lot of people are. He's willing to look at evidence and change his mind if it tells him that his original assumptions were wrong. He has seen that the promises and predictions of the Iraq invasion supporters have not come true - but rather the opposite. The person who has been proved right is John Paul II, who opposed the invasion from the beginning. Blessed be his name.
Let's drop this. You want to argue simply for the sake of arguing never acquiessing to points made.
: )
What's gotten into your wheaties today. Are your undies too tight? Everyone has their opinion and obviously some think that Buckley has gotten too old. Why are you upset? Too close to home perhaps?
There is this natural debate in conservatism, which Buckley understands, playing out between the temptation to be Wilsonian on the foreign policy front in the service of great ideals (like the war in Iraq) and appreciating the truly limited means we have to "make things happen" (if gov't can't properly work at home, why should we believe that our government can help re-make Iraq).
Even during the Cold War, President Reagan chose his battles wisely. If you recall, he never deployed forces in combat to countries larger than Grenada. After Vietnam, Reagan understood that to sustain the constituency needed to win the Cold War, he couldn't go willy-nilly into every hot war during the Cold War. Conservatism is also pragmatic.
In the context of the mosque bombing and subsequent violence, this seems like an impulsive kneejerk response. The aging Buckley has declining tolerance for ambiguity, and apparently little patience for letting events take their full course. Sad to see.
I don't believe it would have been wise to leave Hussein in power. He hated our gutts and would have done just about anything to aid someone who wanted to do us harm.
Beyond that, his treatment of his own people and his continuing threat to other nations in the region made him unacceptable.
He was still causing problems on the no fly zone front. He was still moving his troops in threatening manners. Within approximately a year before he was removed, he had troops move close to the Saudi Border.
He has been removed. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have lost a lot of their leaders and foot soldiers. Iraq is stabalizing. Iraqis are being trained to take over their own defense and by all accounts, we're looking at significant reductions in our troops presense by the end of 2006 or early 2007.
As I said, there was a time when this mosque attack would have caused perhaps tens of thosands their lives. A few hundred have been killed. The nation has not melted down. Instead prominent Imams have asked for calm and are holding Sunni and Shur events to decry the violence and mourn over the loss.
This is a direct slap in the face of the terrorists. Even this didn't cause the nation to slip into civil war.
The general Iraqi is damned tired of the terrorists IMO.
I do not agree with Buckley's assessment. The peace in Iraq may never reach our level of our peace, but the state is solidifying and not in a hostile manner to the U.S. and our interests. I see that as good.
Ok, then what in your view is defeat? Continued Sunni-Shia sectarian strife averaging 50 deaths a day? Or continued political dithering between Sunnis, Shias, Kurds that we have a feckless government? All those things are happening right now.
My take is this: If this keeps up at the end of this year, we have to consider options. Our strategic objective is to Win the War on Terror. And if Iraqis don't share in these objectives, then we have to consider alternatives. We can certainly continue to fund them in US military and economic assistance. But to put our boys and girls on the line in such a context (if it continues) is, in my view, unbelievably stupid.
I was responding to your statement: "Once there's a free country in the muslim world, and this is entirely key, that allows Christians, Jews, and other religious contingents, to live in peace and with all civil and human rights, a concept that runs entirely counter to the Koran, then I'll be a much bigger believer." Turkey seems to fit the bill. It is a free country in the muslim world.
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.
Now you are moving the goal posts. The Turkey of today isn't the Turkey of yesterday. I would add Malaysia to the list of Muslim countries that allow the free practice of religion. With a little research, I could find more. Indonesia used to be fairly tolerant until the militant Islamists surfaced.
What do you suppose that statement, among many, many others, translates to for most muslims that take their Koran seriously?
Selective quotes from the Koran or Bible don't carry much weight with me. I prefer the reality on the ground.
Call me prejudiced, but to me it says what it says, namely that muslims are to fight non-muslims until everyone's muslim.
As you wish, you are prejudiced.
You nailed it---it is a lazy, cursory piece from a guy who did, after all, turn 80 last year.
Letting events take their full course? What does that mean?
Like any strategic thinker, he wouldn't be writing his piece without thinking of the strategic consequences that follow from recent events.
Let's be frank here: In 2003, the CPA did some really stupid things (abolish the military, de-Baathify without an effective PR campaign, underestimated the Anbar province, etc.). In 2004, we had to deal with a Shiite rebellion, courtesty of Sadr. In 2005, we had elections, but had a feckless transitional Iraqi government that barely struck the insurgency. And now, in 2006, we're dealing with Shia-Sunni strife--the possible outlines of a true civil war. Where do we go from here?
Our government's strategy of reaching out to Sunnis is now taking a huge hit. The Sunnis aren't even talking on the political level, much less on the neighborhood level. And now, bringing them in the US-backed Iraqi military is going to be an impossible feat.
That was a GREAT quote. I will have to tell my wife .
I am also fond of my tagline quote, even though Brecht was a rather hardnosed Commie.
The same point that was going through my mind as I read it.
What lazy thinking, completely lacking any sense of irony or perspective.
Buckley is pushing his 80th birthday. He retired from the National Review over 15 years ago. He spends most of his time now in Switzerland, not the US, and as a good patrician no doubt enjoys the insouciant continental ambience. I cut my teeth on Firing Line, but it clear to me that Buckley is basically a retired American.
That was one of the most creative analogies (Neocons as airheaded girlfriends, varsity jackets) that I have EVER read!
"It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats."
Saddam was "needed"? Yeah, too bad we stepped in and stopped Saddam from keeping that pesky majority in check with torture and murder. Things were so much better when it was Saddam and his thugs slaughtering people instead of the terrorists.
The three separate states idea should have been clear to EVERYONE within a few months of our involvement in Iraq.
I said it myself on this forum about TWO YEARS AGO! So commonsensical, so logical....yet this Administration has got this "Save the Union" concept that dates back to our own Civil War, and we know in Iraq there was no "union" but just the appearance of one, that was held together by Saddam's tyranny. The assumption of "democracy" has always bothered me profoundly as it relates to Iraq. We might at best wind up with something that in some ways resembles democracy if we let the Iraqis divide their own country in 3 parts, with the Kurds living in what we might call "American Iraq". But only if they agree to sell us their oil (heh, heh.....)
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.