It Didn’t Work (Buckley declares Iraq a failure)

National Review Online ^ | 02/24/06 | William F Buckley Jr

[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.

[Rodney King]

I think we should just split Iraq up into three countries. It will piss of the UN types, but so be it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Funny how 'conservatives' claim a desire to leave the UN behind. But when it suits their needs (i.e. gives them an excuse to attack a 'belligerent' nation), we need to enforce UN resolutions...

Where's the contradiction? I have no respect for the UN, and I'm all in favor of using it to our advantage when we can, or trying to. How is that a contradiction?

The 'meeting' that supposedly happened in Eastern Europe was deemed to be a falsehood.

"Was deemed"? By whom? If you're talking about the Atta-in-Prague meeting, I don't deem it to be a falsehood.

The ties were tenable at best.

"The ties were tenable"? You're not even sure what you're trying to say.

Anyway, you're arguing with the War Powers resolution now. This might have made sense to do in late 2002. But that argument is over, and your preference lost, because it passed in late 2002. That's three and a half years ago. Are you going to get over it?

[Ultimately it is up to them.] Indeed it is and history tells us exactly what form of govenment they will institute.

Um, "it's up to them" and "history dictates their future" are self-contradictory. Anyway, just to turn the tables on the typical sort of arguments certain folks fling around here - since when do conservatives believe in the (rather Marxist!) notion of historical inevitabilities?

Nope, I see no problem whatsoever overcoming that mindset, they'll just give it right up when they see how great democracy is. Why it'll probably happen practically overnight!!

Projection. No one said it would "happen overnight". Bush has repeated time and time again that this war is a long war. The only people bitching that it's not happening "overnight", as if that's unacceptable, are people like you.

When will 'conservatives' wake up to the realization that it is not our business to determine the level of freedom or the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?

It's not our business, perhaps, until belligerent foreign governments make it our business.

Anyway, by your standard, the Holocaust was not our business, so, good luck with that.

[dmw]

Hey, fruitbat, can I get in on this deal too--minus the trip to Bagdad?? ;-)

[BooksForTheRight.com]

I disagree with conservative hawks on this one.
It isn't working.
Out!

[Dr. Frank fan]

The point I'm getting at is that our "conquest" was far to passively executed.

So basically, you're complaining that we're not using enough of an iron fist to subdue the Iraqi population. Perhaps not. I am not sure. As I'm sure you realize, there is a tradeoff between the benefits of subduing holdout populations, and using so much of an iron fist that civil society becomes impossible in the foreseeable future. Are we hitting that tradeoff perfectly? I don't know, and perhaps not. But how do we know? Your major complaint seems to be that it's "taking too long", which might be a valid complaint, except that you show no consideration for the downside of doing things "faster" (=more ruthlessly). That's why your complaint carries little weight as far as I'm concerned. "Speed" as such is not and cannot be the only consideration here, but to you it seems to be. All that tells me is that you don't care very much about the goal of creating and safeguarding a reasonably sane, consensual government in Iraq; that's fine, but since I do, I am not persuaded by complaints such as yours.

Speaking for myself, I want to win, not only in Iraq but in all of the other places we must inevitably fight, as quickly as possible using any means necessary. Fighting a war with what appear to be half-measures is not a strategy for success.

That was not my question. My question was, in what way have you left "normalcy" to an extent that requires or motivates you to agitate and fiddle for doing things "faster"?

So we're doing things "slowly" and it's "taking a long time". (Maybe because we're trying to err on the side of not-indiscriminately-killing-so-many-civilians, which makes sense to me even if not to you.) What's it to you? How's the "too long" timeframe affecting you, really?

How do we set standards for how long it should take?

Why must we? Again, what's it to you. There is an ongoing US military presence in Iraq and there will be for years if not decades. "Setting standards for how long it should take" is necessary why?

How about just letting them do their job and not whining about it because you want to return to a "normalcy" which you never actually left? Suppose you went to a cabin in the woods and avoided TV/newspaper for six months. Would you even know about the "war" in Iraq which you have convinced yourself is bothering you so much?

Given the enormous advantage in military resources we have over our enemies, I don't just see why it is reasonable to expect a ten or fifteen or twenty year war.

Truth be told, it was a three-week "war". The "Iraq war" is over and we won. What is happening now is not a "war" per se. We are not fighting "against Iraq" or even an organized army of any kind. We simply have a military presence there to quell insurgencies and will for a while, so what? What's it to you?

I still just cannot for the life of me understand the impatience. Completely out of proportion with how it's actually affecting you or 99% of the other hand-wringers.

[SteveMcKing]

He is, considering he does not post here and nobody else can speak for him.

[new yorker 77]

Iraq is a failure to those who have zero connection to the men and women who reenlist to go back in record numbers.

The only people who agree with Buckley's false assertions are those who require failure to justify their pre-war predictions.

I do not hate the troops enough to call their successful efforts a failure.

Some might be selfish enough to do this. I'm not one of them.

I have first hand knowledge of those who serve in my nephew. He is not a failure. He is a success. He is the future. He is not hiding behind his past accomplishments.

There may be those here who come to the defense of Buckley. They are either loyalists or Daily Kos rejects trolling the boards.

Either way, detestable.

Embrace the latest FAKE Iraq Civil War Story.

I will applaud our troops continued successes as they reenlist to go back.

But then again, I guess only 'stupid failures' would reenlist to continue a failed mission.

[SteveMcKing]

I do not reflexively accept that we "lost" Vietnam or that it was wrong. Nor Iraq.

In fact I have not commented on the matter since being diverted by absurd and derogatory attacks on William Buckley that made no good argument contrary to his editorial views on the war.

[SteveMcKing]

"How much farther right does it have to be for you to consider it conservative?"

It's only the difference between "inspired" and "enlightened".

This is why celebrities can feel so empty and alienated -- by knowing that their fans deeply love them, but for all of the wrong reasons.

[SuziQ]

The Sunni and the Shiites would be fighting each other whether we were there, or not. They've been doing it for centuries, and they have no one to blame, but each other.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

I still just cannot for the life of me understand the impatience. Completely out of proportion with how it's actually affecting you or 99% of the other hand-wringers.

I don't understand your continued insistence that one must have a direct personal connection to events on the ground to ask questions about the battleplan. All citizens of the United States have a legitimate right to discuss this issue in good faith regardless of how it is "acutally affecting" any individual. Further, all citizens of a free state have the right to question how long a war will continue - if you don't understand why this is fundamental and necessary, I'd suggest picking up a copy of 1984.

All that tells me is that you don't care very much about the goal of creating and safeguarding a reasonably sane, consensual government in Iraq; that's fine, but since I do, I am not persuaded by complaints such as yours.

You're right - I really don't care about what kind of government they end up with, as long as all of those who would attack our country are killed.

Maybe because we're trying to err on the side of not-indiscriminately-killing-so-many-civilians, which makes sense to me even if not to you.

What does it matter to you? How would it affect you, really, if we killed two or three or ten million civilians in the course of this war?

[SteveMcKing]

Iraq policy can be separated from neoconservatism.

I support aggressive pursuit of WMD - which we have not done (search warrants should not be obtained over long periods of debate at the United Nations, yet that is what we did unfortunately).

[Badray]

Stop and consider that Buckley was the MSM's favorite 'conservative' and 'go to' guy for 30 years. They let him define 'conservatism' and he seemed to define it downwards to their satisfaction. Anyone more conservative than him was then painted as an extremist.

No, this really isn't a departure for Buckley. It's more of the same. Perhaps he has been out of the spotlight too much lately and he misses it.

[garv]

Buckley is not asserting that Iraq is a military failure. His point is that anything short of establishing a stable democratic government in Iraq will be perceived as a policy failure.

I have an active duty family member and ultimate success or failure in Iraq will have little reflection on him and his brothers in arms.

[nmh]

Buckley is the failure.

He has been this for quite a few YEARS.

Will he admit he is wrong? Or dig his heels in more?

I suspect that later because of his HUGE ego.

[new yorker 77]

William Buckley should be smart enough to expect far worse than the timid comments being thrown his way here at freerepublic when he declares "Iraq is a failure".

His assertions are not only wrong but they reflect a disconnect to the reality of the efforts of those involved in the War in Iraq.

He deserves worse than what he is getting because he should know better.

I question his wherewithal and I deplore his indifference to the warriors who call their efforts a success.

[UpToHere]

...These people apparently expect us to do everything for them. They could take somewhat of an "ownership role" here. It almost seems as if we've created an "entitlement nation" in this way....

Just kind on mirrowing New Orleans.

[new yorker 77]

I have an active duty family member and ultimate success or failure in Iraq will have little reflection on him and his brothers in arms.

Your statement is foolish because it is wrong.

My nephew's words in an email reflect the words of his brothers, "We can not fail. If we fail in Iraq, we're failures. Since we are not failing, we are not failures. And you can take that to the bank. Tell the folks back home causing trouble to grow a spine."

You let me know when a soldier says, "If we fail, it's o.k. I can still hold my head high."

[billbears]

Anyway, by your standard, the Holocaust was not our business, so, good luck with that.

Cute. The Holocaust was our business. Why? Because Woodrow Wilson involved this nation in a war that was none of its business 20 years prior, creating the vacuum in Germany. We had to fix the situation that we helped create. However, if FDR had not attacked Japan economically in the mid 1930s, Japan very well may have been used against Germany instead of joining the Axis powers against the Allies