Skip to comments.The Killings Tell A Story (William Buckley Jr. is an idiot)
Posted on 04/04/2006 3:27:12 PM PDT by jmc1969
The fatality figures in Iraq are perhaps telling a story, which would be that the war focuses progressively on internecine killings. The American death rate for March was 31 fatalities, a gruesome toll (one per day), yet the second lowest since the invasion was launched three years ago. Over approximately the same period, nearly 1,500 Iraqi civilians were killed, according to the American military, a significant increase over recent months.
One asks then: Is the furious resolve of the insurgents altering in focus? Has the enemy reckoned that the problem in hand is not Americans, who will be gone, roughly speaking, tomorrow, but Iraqis whose ethnic identities will remain the same when the grandchildren of both parties will be eyeing each other?
The rate of these killings reduces but is not concomitant with any reduction in U.S. strength. It is brought on by (a) the reduction in U.S. exposure, and (b) insurgent concentration on non-U.S. targets.
But ask then: Is this reduced exposure a part of the U.S. battle plan? We have not in recent months seen any hard U.S. assaults on hard Iraqi targets, in the class of Fallujah in the fall of 2004. Can we assume that such hard enemy nests aren't there, holding out? Or rather that the U.S. army command is less bent on smoking them out?
If there are (one speculates) 15 areas of Iraq in which the insurgents are embedded with special defensive ingenuity, the commanding general can elect to dispatch bombs and artillery, always with some care for collateral damage done to innocent civilians. But that approach, a platonic alternative to sending in a battalion with instructions to root out the offenders, means a diminished exposure of American soldiers to high-cost engagements.
To reason that this is happening is deductive: fewer casualties, fewer engagements. However, fewer engagements should presume an enemy diminished in size and potency. But to say that runs us into the corresponding figure, of 1,500 Iraqi civilian deaths. Somebody is killing those people, and the whole idea of the U.S. enterprise was to shield the Iraqi population not only from the depredations of Saddam Hussein, but also from successor killers. Manifestly this has not happened, if the killing proceeds at so high a rate.
I have myself concluded that our Iraqi mission has failed.
Buckley has lost his marbles. He's got a bad case of Cronkitis. Fool.
Buckley, another clown who never wore the uniform much less served in combat.
We liberated FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE in three years with less than three thousand KIA's. Now if that isn't a victory I don't know what is. FDR & LBJ would have given their right arm for a similar success!
Buckley is now using Iraqi casulties to explain how we have lost.
Bill is simply wrong on this particular issue. He's done too much good over the past half century for us to throw him under the car.
"Buckley is now using Iraqi casulties to explain how we have lost."
yea, well that dog won't hunt...
did we win WWI or WWII?
well I hope everyone remembers what the casualties were...
He simply doesn't understand the situation any more then the average American does. He seems to think 1,500 casulties in a month is a sign the enemy is winning. But, he is not sure who the enemy is.
I would say 1/4 of those deaths are probably criminal in nature. 1/2 are being caused by Baathists and jihadists and the other half by Shia militias. Iraqi is going to be in a low level insurgent and sectarian conflict for years, it doesn't mean Iraq is any closer to failing then Pakistan is today.
WFB,Jr. served in the US Army as an enlisted man.
I assume you voted for John Kerry.
And long-standing tribal blood feuds. Saddam kept all these people in line by making everyone fear him. Now that he's gone, people are more inclined to take vengeance against each other for past offenses and transgressions that can stretch back generations.
But ask then: Is this reduced exposure a part of the U.S. battle plan? We have not in recent months seen any hard U.S. assaults on hard Iraqi targets, in the class of Fallujah in the fall of 2004.
I think lately he's developed a case of Goldwateritis.
I voted for GWB who wore the uniform, served and did not disgrace his uniform by lying about those of us who did serve in Viet Nam.
Buckley did in fact serve in the Army. If you look at his biography by John Judis, you can see a family picture that proves this.
But so what?
Can't a person comment on a war without having served in one?
What kind of know-nothing BS are you peddling?
And how dare you call Buckley a clown. He is one of the few outstanding leaders American conservatism ever had. Some intelligent people believe that there wouldn't have been much of it without him.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
"I assume you voted for John Kerry."
Heh -- good one, Tall.
You stand corrected and should also be embarrassed, sir.
I'm afraid his judgment may be going the way Goldwater's did in HIS old age.
"What kind of know-nothing BS are you peddling?"
Liberating FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE IS NOT A FAILURE!
now what kind of "know-nothing BS" are you peddling? LMAO
the only person who should be embarrassed is Buckley! LMAO
He's no idiot. I think he's tired.
"Heh -- good one, Tall."
simple minds are easily impressed.
now this was a better one.
"I voted for GWB who wore the uniform, served and did not disgrace his uniform by lying about those of us who did serve in Viet Nam."
He's done some good. National Review is a decent publication. But I don't consider him the conservative icon many do.
You might be right I see him as tired.
Gruesome? Bill Buckley use to be a wordsmith. Not anymore.
Hey Bill, you want gruesome. In the battle of Iwo Jima, over a 36 day period, 7,000 American military were killed and 19,000 wounded out of a force of 77,000. The Japs suffered 21,000 dead and a 1,000 captured, out of a force of 22,000. That's gruesome Bill.
If your aren't a liberal at 20 you are heartless.
If your aren't a conservative at 80 you are senile.
What was the death rate in country when Saddam was murdering over 1/2 million of his own?
Buckley was a WWII vet, then he reenlisted as a CIA agent during the Korean War.
For more than 50 years he was the leading agent of conservatism in America, founding the flagship publication for conservatives, The National Review
He even managed to get the finest conservative TV show ever created on PBS. During the sixties he was the only conservative media presence I'm aware of. I still subscribe to National Review.
I think I can survive one disagreement with such a figure every few decades.
The war in Iraq has gone on for a very long time, and still one can't drive from Baghdad to the airport without an armed guard. There's nothing to like about this war, nothing to like about the Wilsonian rhetoric the president now employs to justify it, and no reason to honestly believe that, once we leave, backward looking Iraqis won't simply put a match to the constitution and push the country into chaos.
Unlike Buckley, I haven't totally given up on this effort --- yet. But, if I ever did, I no longer try to persuade myself that the war, and all that's come with it, is truly in the best interests of the United States.
Mr. Buckley's analysis of the situation in Iraq is that of a clown. That is the bottom line. Regardless of his respected past.
Complete foolishness is what he is peddling to the point of absurdity.
"The war in Iraq has gone on for a very long time...."
The definition of a long war has changed in proportion to the attention span of many Americans over the years.
Who do you think the new Iraq is going to be hunting down with their agents in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere after the situation is stabilized. I will give you a hint it is not Americans and these people are the whole point of the War on Terror.
Iraq hates al-Qaeda far more then Americans do.
Agreed. See reply #15.
There is no comparison between the casualties of WWII and Iraq, a fact Mr. Buckley well knows.
Did the Revolutionary War lasted to long for you?
"The American casualties for March [in Iraq] was 31."
This amounts to one per day. My son who currently is serving in Afghanistan says we (American military) are now loosing about 3 or 4 a week in Afghanistan. He doesn't think this is being reported in the US, and as a mother who pays attention to these things, I haven't noticed it being reported either.
Some of you may have read the thread I posted titled "Front Line Views on Iraq/Afghanistan War Situation" on 3/12/06. I now have enough useful communications to post a Front Line Views #2, which I plan to do this Thursday night or Friday day.
Yeah, you're smarter than Buckley.
With all due respect to you, WFB's poop has more credibility, whether you like it or not.
Of course this is just my opinion, I'm sure you'll not like it from me either.
Mr. Buckley is talking foolishness. Plain and simple. We are in a war, a world war....people are going to die. That doesn't show success or lack of success because of such.
Furthermore in this world war with terrorism our one true ally will be the values of freedom and self-worth. To suggest either of those are not in the interest of the United States is completely wrong.
one can't drive from Baghdad to the airport without an armed guard.
Bullsh*t! - millions of of Iraqi's move around freely throughout Iraq each day sans ANY armed guards next to them. That some Iraqi's are being killed for a variety of reasons outside of this war itself, does not reflect whatsoever on the amazing success of which our forces have helped to create within Iraq since 2003.
Nor do those Iraqi's that are being killed because of this war/ and our efforts amount to any sensible criteria that we are losing. These Iraqi's are dying to build a new Iraq...a war very much worth fighting for.
That Americans don't move/travel throughout sections of Iraq without being armed simply reinforces the reality that we are at war with an enemy that wants to kill us. Nothing more...nothing less.
Plenty like Mr. Buckley from thousands of miles away want to try and tell others of what is happening on the ground within Iraq...when they simply have no clue to what is actually going on, especially so in the bigger picture...which is usually very hard to see from a far (a fact that a man of Mr. Buckley's intellect should be well aware of).
Before Iraq, he was the "Great William F. Buckley," a sort of demigod around here.
Now, because he dares disagree with the party line about Iraq, he's ostracized as an "idiot"? Heck no. He was an intellectual conservative when they simply didn't exist. He deserves more respect than he's been shown on this board. You may not agree with him, but he's not "lost his marbles." At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that reasonable minds can differ about whether Iraq is working or not.
"I think I can survive one disagreement with such a figure every few decades."
Exactly. The dumb klucks on this thread are too much to bear. They simply don't understand much. They're the kind of folks who think political activism consists of spamming your friends with pics of bald eagles, American flags, and silhouettes of President Bush praying.
I wasn't comparing the casualties of WWII with the casualties in Iraq. I was comparing a one month battle of WWII that took 7,000 US military lives, with the 31 killed in Iraq during the month of March 2006. The former is a gruesome event, the latter is not.