Posted on 06/18/2005 4:58:41 PM PDT by CHARLITE
It's correct that there is political commotion mounting in opposition to the Iraq war. It is important to distinguish between two kinds. One, which is gaining attention, centers on misrepresentations. The so-called Downing Street Memo is cited. This records an exchange at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002, at which, it is said, the representatives of Mr. Bush made it clear that the president had resolved to proceed against Iraq irrespective of what the United Nations might do. Rejecting that account, the Bush people have said that the invasion was not finally planned until after the appeal to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 5, 2003.
The revisionist line is saying that the war should not have taken place and that many who gave it support were deceived by apodictic claims from the White House that the enemy had weapons of mass destruction.
That argument, gaining strength with the formation of an "Out of Iraq" congressional caucus, is one thing -- a reiteration of anti-war and isolationist sentiment. This is unrelated to reservations being expressed within the conservative community having to do with the need to rethink the claims of that war on our support.
Last week a conservative dissenter submitted an analysis to his colleagues. Several points were made.
After the success of the military enterprise, "two goals then took form. The first was to organize elections, giving Iraqis' tribal divisions an opportunity, acting together, to record their willingness to establish a self-governing republic. Once again, the results were gratifying. Some 80 percent of those who voted registered their endorsement of a constitutional regime change.
"The second goal has been to bring such order to Iraq as is required to effect the self-government the voters had endorsed. This objective has failed."
The failure, it is argued, cannot be redeemed by prospects that remain illusory. There isn't freedom of civil action in Iraq. There are areas in which order is routinely exercised, but there are no areas where Iraqis can assume safety from insurgent disruption.
In the past 12 months, our policies have been expediential: an attempt to effect such order as is required to permit a devolution of authority to Iraqis. The planted axiom has been that it is only a matter of time before the two great passions -- for stability and for political self-government -- converge into a new and viable Iraq.
That's not to be taken for granted. "No developments in the first half year of 2005 warrant confidence that these goals are being met, or even that they are predictable. The blame for this cannot responsibly be assigned to any one delinquent body. The United States military has performed with courage and perseverance. The Iraqis have never submitted to the insurgents, by whom they are nevertheless frequently overcome."
The critic persuasively argues that no commitment by the United States can be interpreted as extending beyond a reasonable allocation of the nation's resources. We could not, in March 2003, when the war began, be expected to fix a figure of soldiers dead and billions spent, after which geopolitical assumptions would be revised.
"As major military operations are measured," we are reminded, "our losses in Iraq are statistically exiguous, but they are nonetheless inordinate. The disposition to bear the cost and pain of human losses is necessarily measured by coordinate purposes and achievements. Our desire that the new Iraq, uninterrupted by insurgency, should proceed as a free and independent state is less than a commitment to which we are prepared to make sacrifices without measure."
The critic concludes: "The moment comes in every military venture, short of national self-defense, when responsible thought is given to the correlation of ends and means. One reason given for venturing into Iraq was the need to impress upon the nations of the world the decisive nature of U.S. intercessions. We effected this by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have dulled the example we set out to make by tolerating costs without corresponding advances on the strategic goal."
A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will then be contempt.
Char
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Only from the feeble minded Bill, only from the feeble minded.
My favorite Burke quote. We have only to recall the sacrifices of the past generation that kept the world from falling to Nazi and Japanese barbarism. Today, we're faced with an even bloodier breed of barbarians. The maintenance of civilization is a never-ending task and the calling of our time as that of generations before us, is to keep the torch of freedom lit for all to see that the oppressed of every land can find their way forward through the darkness to the light of freedom. For in their freedom lies the security of our own.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
As with many men in his decade, I fear Bill may be going mushy in the head. The last line in this missive is an example. If he can't call what we have seen from the Left since DAY ONE of this war "contempt" for the cause and the CIC, then I'd hate to see REAL contempt.....
prisoner6
Reality Check please!
My response is that Bill evidently lacks the fortitude of our soldiers in the field. Right is right whether it is yesterday, today, or a year from this moment.
Shame on him.
While perhaps the case could be made based on past contributuion Bill deserves further response, This column deserves no other response.
And .. with people like this .. with such name recognition in the conservative area .. it's digusting!
Nobody has any spine anymore. It's all about "can't we all just get along".
So .. I wonder what he thought of the 7000 men who were lost in ONE DAY for an island in the Pacific. Should we have said - that's too much and just brought our men home ..??
Thank GOD we had men of vision who understood what was at stake and stood their ground - FOR VICTORY.
You're exactly right, and this is one more time when William F. Buckley, Junior lives down to my opinion of him.
Yep Mr. Buckley, lets throw in the towel and instead fight these people in Florida, Wisconson, Texas, Colorado, Washington, New York...
Oh screw your nonsensical meanderings! Our President and Military are doing the right thing and you pansies can wet yourselves in the interum, the men in our military will be done when they are done.
Stick that in your pipe and poke it.
Darn right!
So what solution is being proposed here? Should the United States turn tail and run from Iraq because the costs have become too large?
To do do in the face of continuing terrorist attacks would tell everyone that the United States will not tolerate casualties. It would also mean that those casualities would have been in vain. Such a retreat would not "impress upon the nations of the world the decisive nature of U.S. intercessions."
It is perfectly reasonable to express doubts about whether the United States should have gone to war, as Mr. Buckley has. But that decision has been made, and cannot be unmade. Now the only question is how best to win this war.
What's more these young men and women understand that the enemy can not regroup, resupply and take the offensive when American men with painted faces and bad attitutes are climbing down their throats on a daily basis. Why Mr Buckley and his "conservative friend", Pat Buchanan?, can't understand that the absence of attacks on American interests and American soil outside the ME is directly related to this is something that escapes me.
Unlike the 60's and 70's, we have talk radio, Fox News, and of course, the internet. We have falling newspaper circulation, because a lot of people don't believe the tripe that's put on the front page.
We also face a threat from killers who would like nothing beter than to bring the war to our streets again. The lefty Anti-Americans are going to fail this time. If they start to win, the terrorists will bring it to our streets.
That said, the threat Bill points out is real, though.
Buckley doesn't grasp the big picture. We will be there ten years from now and for good reasons that should be obvious even to him.
That sounds great, but the American people aren't going to put up with this forever. Sure, freedom has a price, but what is the price for other peoples' freedom? Especially if freedom means a government where Islam plays a big role. There are 2.2 military deaths per day over there. Three and half more years of this will give us about 3000 more killed. At this rate, Bush's approval ratings will be in the low 30s and the Republican nominee will have no chance.
We need our "kicking butt in Fallujah" picture!!
Did someone spike the "conservative " punchbowl with wobbly juice?
And .. somebody on the right said recently .. if the terrorists manage to strike us again .. the blame will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the left - and a second attack could bring martial law; and other assorted restrictions to our way of life.
The democrats don't care .. they are in denial.
We were in Japan for 7 years; we were in Germany for 9 years. And .. Iraq already has a govt in less than 3 years. What the heck is everybody whining about ..??
That's what I was thinking too .. what the heck brought on all this doubt.
It has to be the constantly screaming democrats.
Thanks, Char; I'm always interested in what Bill Buckley says.
Iraq has none of that. It is total chaos. While this war isn't as deadly as Vietnam, it is more complicated.
Americans are going to get sick of this and will make the Republicans pay. There comes a point when rhetoric about freedom doesn't fly anymore. You may not like that conclusion, but that's reality.
The fact war isn't bloodless like a video game, nor can be condensed to the length of a commercial.
Spineless wimps would have lost the revolutionary war. If they can't hack it then they need to sit down, shut up and let those that can do the work they volunteered to do. They could respec our troops THAT much, can't they? Are do the armchair generals with AC's keeping the sweat from their brows know better than our troops taking these terrorists down in far greater number then they are us?
When Mr. Buckley talks or writes of the Middle East, I confess it's among the rare times in his life as a philosophy commentator that I either completely disagree or, possibly, don't understand what he is saying. Surely his point here is the case in each and every foreign policy and/or defense endeavor.
Anyone who says the United States has failed in Iraq doesn't seem to me to understand the mission. Maybe I don't either. The Battle of Iraq segment of World War IV seems to me to be an effort by President Bush to alter the underlying dynamic. Long term that may also be the case in Afghanistan.
No part of this strikes me as easy. I don't know if failure is an option. I do know that success changes everything in the current world outlook.
Total chaos? Hardly.
The reality is that AMERICANS will pay with withdrawal.
That isn't rhetoric. That is fact. Withdraw there the middle east explodes in terrorism, allies crumble and they meet us here in greater force than 9-11.
I don't believe Americans will make Republicans pay. I believe they'll make appeasers and cowards pay. As they have shown for two election cycles.
This is the same mistake WFB makes, assuming we are only fighting for others freedom. The reason we are in Iraq is to secure this country and the freedoms we hold dear. Every other consideration is secondary. Unless we elect shortsighted leaders in the coming years, we will be in Iraq for a long time to come. Long after the threat of Islamic terrorism is defeated, we will still be there to stamp it out whenever it tries to rise again.
My understanding is that there was a guerilla resistance in Germany for several years after the war ended.
I hear you. As a former Buckley fan, I'd prefer him to remain quiet as he ages, but the natural urge of the country club 'pub is to let "moderation" and "reflection" ooze to the surface and congeal.
Wow, I'm surprised that he has capitulated so soon, after all 1300 years is much to overcome. Besides, IMO I believe part of the plan was to be around and in the neighborhood if and when the Iranian democratic movement takes place. Given the history of Islam and their willingness to butcher their own to enforce tyranny, it will take more than a couple years to allow that region to develop a sense of humanity. Now a person may argue about the benefits or feasibility of "nation building" but when Islam brings the battle to US through threats and aggressive action and through university "diversity programs" then it is time to act and act we did. I just don't see how anyone can make a judgement on whether order can be restored until it plays out, and I don't know that there is a timeline for that.
About the "Werewolf" idea that never went anywher, from http://germanyinworldwar2.com/post-worldwarII.htm
One threat to the post-World War 2 period in Germany never materialized. That threat was from the Werwolf (Werewolf) organization of German guerrilla fighters that had planned to fight behind enemy lines during World War 2 and, when the war ended, had planned to continue their actions and had also planned revenge against all Germans that were traitors to the Nazi cause. After succeeding Hitler, Admiral Doenitz ordered the organization to cease hostile actions and they promptly obeyed the order.
billie is MUCH TOO intelligent for me to be able to criticize so I'll just point out that he seems to be turning himself into the same kind of dunce Barry Goldwater was just before he suffled off to Buffalo.
Unless will undergirds power, defeat is not out of reach.
And we're not losing by any measure. We haven't killed or discouraged all the terrorists, not yet, but if we persevere for another few years, there seems to be a very reasonable prospect of success. The goal is worthy of a great nation -- we can transform that entire region for the better, and end what is literally a menace to Western Civilization. If we quit, however, we'll never have another ally. Who would trust us?
I don't understand Buckley's position at all. Bill, if you're lurking (and you probably are), I hope you'll reconsider.
It seems odd to me how the person most directly responsible, after Reagan himself, of course, for Reagan's election (in my mind--he may be second or third in yours, but he ranks high) can come in for such calumny without a strong analysis of the arguments he presents. "Going mushy" isn't going to do the job.
Classic WFB... Why use the term 'insignificant' when you can write 'exiguous' instead...
"spineless wimps"
Rush gave some stats once which surprised me. He said that during the Revolutionary War .. 33% wanted a new nation; 33% wanted to stay with the King of England; and the other 33% really didn't give a rip either way.
I do believe the very same groups still exist in America today. The wimpy ones want to drag everybody else down to their level - because that's the only way they look good.
Soooo .. I too wish the wimps would just sit down and shut up and let those who can - WIN THE WAR.
Why does Bill wait until the tide seems to be turning, before entering into the fray? Another aging conservative experiencing the Barry Goldwater syndrome?
Love the guy, but thought he, of all people, would advocate staying the course.
Maybe, but if people could deal with the fact that this isn't like WWII or Like Vietnam and that it is defined by it's own terms then maybe truth could be handled by people. Don't forget Germany was flattened by the allies, we left no infrastructure and the people feeling hopeless. We did no such thing in Iraq, in fact tried to do just the opposite which left the terrorist insurgents emboldened and the country relatively intact. There are arguments that you may make against "neocons" but this is not one that is of any real importance...IMHO
Maybe but it will because of immigration, CAFTA and LOST type issues not "Freedom rhetoric". Freedom and Liberty properly understood transcends all humanity and if one does not grasp that then can not understand our founding principles. Yes I know , our Founders wanted to stay out of foreign affairs, but they never envisioned airplanes the Internet or the UN.
Well .. I hate to break it to ya .. but according to Ollie North (who is a WWII historian), Germany especially continued with guerilla warfare (leftover SS), who ambushed and we ended up fighting a door to door - house to house war for at least 3-4 years after Germany surrendered.
Also .. false - "Iraq is total chaos". I don't know where you're getting your info .. but it's not very reliable. Baghdad is the hot button .. but the majority of the rest of Iraq is relatively peaceful .. especially since the new Iraq army has been conducting successful raids on the terrorists trying to disrupt the new democracy.
Maybe the weenies will get sick of this - but I'm in it for NOTHING LESS THAN VICTORY - cutting and running will never do for me.
This war is absolutely - in no way - related to or resembles VIETNAM. The lefties of this country want people to think it is - BUT IT ISN'T.
As for reality .. you have no idea what reality is - not when it comes to the resolve of Americans to WIN.
I've read this piece several times, and I'm still not sure of all Buckley intends to convey. One disappointment, he made no mention of how the MSM is whipping up the dissent, definitely affecting the president's poll numbers, and America's opinion on the war. No mention of how the repetition of those numbers by the media, I submit, causes the numbers to fall even more.
I hate to say it, but this media instigated chain reaction reminds me more and more of Viet Nam and how America lost it's nerve. It really could be happening again, but I haven't seen or heard anyone discuss it.
Buckley's most chilling line for me was: " A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride"
Remember...the left's main attack on Bush is his subborn streak. It's a serious attack line, if William F. Buckley is beginning to believe it.
I don't want us to lash out at Buckley for what he writes. I want us to take him very, very seriously.
"I hate to say it, but this media instigated chain reaction reminds me more and more of Viet Nam and how America lost it's nerve. It really could be happening again, but I haven't seen or heard anyone discuss it."
You should check Rush's website every day. He's been talking about this for weeks; maybe months.
To the dems every war is Vietnam, and every repub president is Nixon.
Agreed!
Sad but true.
I think there's a gene in us all that seems to urge us to 'make a difference' when we get older. Buckley has always, even since the 60s seemed too full of himself for me to take him serious. It's okay to impart your wisdom. People should, but when it gets to the point that you talk real slow, pause for the full meaning to sink in, and make facial expressions that would generally send a Saturday Night Live audience into fits of laughter, it's pretty much lost on me.
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
No more Viet Nams. Weeeeee won't let the media get away with it again. We saw. We remember.
This time we have FOX and the Internet.
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.