Posted on 02/27/2006 7:39:06 AM PST by Angel
During Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt, a Muslim writer described his fascination and admiration for the French method of jurisprudence even during hostilities. According to historian Bernard Lewis, the writer compared French due process to the extremist Muslims who pretended to be warriors in a holy war but killed people and destroyed human beings for no other reason than to gratify their animal passions. This terrorist tactic is not new to this current war; yet, it is having an adverse effect on how some people define success. Too many have fallen under the influential barrage of the information campaign waged by the terrorists and by those who believe the time has come to leave the Middle-East theater, regardless of the outcome for Iraq.
The latest victim of negative news comes from a most unexpected source-the preeminent conservative thinker of the past half century: William F. Buckley. He once eloquently debated Ronald Reagan during the Carter years on the Panama Canal issue, against the wave of conservative thought at that time. However, he now has presented his perception of failure on the Iraq war in less convincing terms.
The sources contributing to his position are quite questionable. He has apparently relied upon the New York Times to provide a ‘man on the street’ quote from an Iraqi businessman. He continued by mentioning the Iranian president’s usual “blame everything on the Zionists” reference. Buckley’s last source came from an inconclusive thought provided by an “anonymous” American soldier.
To enhance his belief in his essay, “It Didn’t Work”, Mr. Buckley described how the businessman blames Iraq’s problems on America. It is puzzling to rely on this quote, since the man is described as being a member of a Sunni stronghold, so it is not difficult to surmise where his loyalties originate. This same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945.
The anonymous soldier that Buckley referred to apparently has come to the realization that he is now aware of why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each other’s throats. (Apparently, the news organizations failed to report that Hussein must have finished a close second for the Nobel Peace Prize for his protection of the Shiites). Rather than playing the referee in Baghdad, evidence shows that the butcher was actually leading the Sunni charge against the Shiite throats in a one-way contest of torture and suppression.
It is surprising that such a learned man as Buckley has fallen victim to the misinformation side of this conflict. He attempts to back up his interpretation of this war being a failure by posing some postulates. The first one is that the Iraqi people would put aside their divisions and establish a political environment that guarantees religious freedom. If he assumes that the Iraqis failed in this pursuit, he should review the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution which expressly delineates that particular freedom.
Mr. Buckley’s second postulate assumes that Americans would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers to handle insurgents bent on violence. He followed this by saying that this did not happen. His conclusion is absolutely false. What war has he been watching? The training program is currently underway and has succeeded to the extent that the Iraqis are taking on missions and commanding terrain previously under the control of the coalition.
Mr. Buckley went on to ask what we should do when we see that the postulates do not prevail. Unfortunately, he has come to false conclusions because he has negated the postulates without looking at the data, relying instead upon the massive amount of negative reporting, and apparently basing his ultimate conclusion on three unreliable sources in his essay. Eventually, his suggestion is to abandon the postulates.
Why abandon success just because the enemy and the anti-war crowd say it has failed? Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to place the events in Iraq in context. From the signing of the American Declaration of Independence, it took nearly 40 years, a constitutional convention, and four presidents to finally achieve a sense of security in the United States. In the country’s infancy, it was never completely secure with the English, French, and Spanish waiting for the right opportunity to recover all they had lost at the expense of the American quest for freedom and sovereignty.
As the third anniversary of the Iraqi invasion approaches, the success in that country is undeniable. One of world’s bloodiest tyrants has been deposed and the first elections were held less than 22 months later. Nine months afterward, a constitution had been formed and overwhelmingly approved by a public referendum. To cap off the electoral success of 2005, a permanent government was voted upon. A momentous achievement to note was that the voters for the new Council of Representatives included a significant number of Sunnis who had boycotted the first election.
In one of his closing comments, Mr. Buckley assumes that eventually President Bush and the military leaders will acknowledge a tactical setback and instead insist on the survival of strategic policies. He has the tactical and strategic definitions confused. The war has been an overwhelming tactical success. Even the enemy has conceded this, which is why the terrorists have relied upon the sensational news of blowing up innocent civilians. Since they are unable to confront coalition forces or the Iraqi Army, they have targeted the weakest link, yet survive upon the benefits that the mainstream media and the left have provided. Those unwilling to continue the success in Iraq look upon the negative news and are adamant that this must be leading to a civil war, thus, indicating defeat in the overall mission. On the contrary, the President and top military leaders have maintained a consistent vision for success in the strategic arena which requires a firm commitment to ensure a free and democratic Iraq.
It is difficult to witness somebody of Buckley’s stature acknowledging defeat in the last sentence of his essay. Has he fallen for the boisterous negativity of the anti-war crowd? Mr. Buckley, say it isn’t so. The title of your piece is wrong. The strategic mission in Iraq has worked and it continues to do so.
John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He serves in Baghdad, Iraq.
© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved
Have we heard anything from Buckley since his article?
Now, who should we believe: a Lt. Colonel serving in Iraq, or an armchair retired conservative publisher? Hmm. Let me think for .0000001 nanoseconds. Okay, I'll go with the Colonel.
This piece makes way to much sense to have mainstream appeal.
bump
Buckley also said, taking the opinion of another:
"..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 Samarra 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..."
Official says Iraqis resisting civil war(Blames Zarqawi for Attack on Shiite Shrine)
Iraqis have not gone to full civil war yet and there are signs that they are still trying. Buckley was premature and overstated the significance of the bombing. It is Zarqawi who is in trouble.
I have a great deal of respect for Buckley. However, I heard him speak once when I was a student and was astounded to hear him use very old statistics that were no longer true. He just wasn't on his game that night. And that was 30 years ago. Like all of us, he isn't perfect and has been known to speak out unwisely. That is not to undermine his consideration accomplishments.
I believe Mr. Buckly was referencing the many reports that Iraqi police and military did not interfere with, and apparently sometimes participated in, Shia attacks on Sunnis and their mosques.
This is a giant problem that cannot be dismissed by simply saying he is wrong.
Unless you know from observation, as the Colonel does, that Mr. Buckley is wrong...
Also, Buckley "empical" evidence is base on "not so" credible sources.
Ditto, either way the Sunnis (main antagonists) would lose and the US would win. The Sunnis treat the Shiites the way Imperial Japan treated the Koreans. They are lucky that they have not been butchered in the streets shortly after Saddam's fall. The minority Sunnis have two choices, give up their dreams of regaining power or face annihilation at the hands of the majority Iraqis. The US should signal to the Sunnis that we can play it either way.
Nor can the stunning success of the Iraqi military and police be dismissed by you or Mr. Buckley simply saying "They've failed."
Outstanding rebuttal by a light colonel on the ground in Baghdad.
This is true and after watching how the Americans and Iraqis cut off the north and west rat lines last year and watched a serious reductions in violence as a result I am at a loss at to what the f__k Buckley is talking about.
I've read a couple of Bernard Lewis's books. I recommend them to anyone who wants to understand what's going on over there.
Only Al-Quaeda, Iran or radical Shiites like Al-Sadr would benefit from a civil war. The Sunnis would get creamed and they know it. They don't like it, but they see it.
As to Mr Buckleys views the corner at the NRO website had this on Saturday.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090989
"William F. Buckley Jr. has been skeptical about the Iraq venture for some time. Two years ago he said that if he had known before the war that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, he would have opposed the war. The mosque bombing appears to have been the final straw for him. He now says that it is beyond doubt that "the American objective in Iraq has failed." It is time for an "acknowledgment of defeat."
This is a refinement and extension of Bill's position in response to new circumstances. It's not a case in which a full-throated supporter of the war turned on it and came out for an immediate withdrawal. He wasn't a full-throated supporter of the war, and he hasn't (yet?) come out for immediate withdrawal. Still, his pronouncement strikes me as important (even allowing for the bias that comes from working in the House of Buckley).
I myself think that Bill's conclusion is premature. It could very well be vindicated by events, although obviously I hope it won't be.
Posted at 06:01 PM
So like he says take this into account as to Buckly
Buckley was a bit of a conservative icon for me when I was in my college years. I read his columns for years after that. It is sad to see him so out of touch. Of course, he would certainly say that I am the one that is clueless, but I'll take the L.C.'s read over Buckley any day.
Here's how the MSM does "man on the street" comments in Iraq.
They will talk to 500 Iraqis if they have to until they find one who will say something that they can spin their way. It might just be a comment taken out of context to suit their agenda or they might stumble upon that disgruntled Saddam loyalist (I've run into a handful of them myself - VERY small minority, but they're out there) who wants to vent on the eeeeevil U.S.
No matter how many Iraqis they talk to to get what they want, they'll put that guy who fits their agenda on the news and represent him as the majority mindset of Iraq.
And that's just one of their cute little tricks.
Exactly.
What is reported in the media and what is reality in Iraq are really about as different as night and day.
I actually tend to like Buckley, but he's wrong on this one.
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.