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
The strategic blunder wasn't about getting rid of Hussein. The strategic blunder was in going into Iraq without the will to deal with (especially) Syria and Iran when they predictably began to fuel the insurgencies.
Unfortunately, it seems like the Administration thought the taste of Democracy (a la Eastern Europe) would spark a wave of patriotism and a willingness to come together to have said Democracy. But these aren't Christian Europeans. These are Islamic peoples who have nothing but a history of living by force and subduing by force and being commanded by force. The elections should have borne some sort of willingness of the Iraqi street to clean out the insurgents and take control of their country. Instead, they've been cowed to the sidelines while Zarqawi and his ilk run roughshod over whatever they can lay their hands on. Meanwhile, the Shiites and Sunnis haven't been willing to meet halfway in the spirit of ironing out a government that people can look to for leadership.
Everyone cracks out the word "desperation" when a mosque gets bond. I dunno - until we start seeing some concrete rooting out of the insurgents and a willingness of the Iraqi street to crush these fools, it looks like power to me.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a failure (Saddam is out of power, that's for sure), but it's not going well. And if Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, can enjoy turning his own trial into a theatrical circus, what about the rest of Iraq?
"bond" should be "bombed"
If you look closely, you may observe that I didn't say that.
Nor do I believe it.
My reference, and I believe Buckley's, was to events in the last few days only. They are very scary, perhaps even scary enough to induce the Iraqis to pull back from the brink of civil war.
I would not accuse this Administration of lacking will. Now, you might not agree with its timetable. So be it. But Iran was not included in the Jan '03 "Axis of Evil" speech (and mentioned again in the '06 SOTU speech) just because...
Let's see, Saddam is on trial. I'd say it worked.
You might want to look closely yourself. I used the exact approach you did.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20. The truth is, neither Bill Buckley nor anyone else in the West could know what Saddam Hussein was hiding. The president had to make a decision based on the best available intelligence.
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."
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we go along with Mr. Buckley and acknowledge defeat in Iraq. Then what? Do we withdraw our forces and leave Iraq to burn? Do the US forces stay and install some kind of puppet dictator, a kind of "Saddam lite"? Do we partition the country? Perhaps we allow the the Iranians to step in and take over?
Unfortunately, Mr. Buckley offers no solutions. I am glad he was not in charge in 1941, and I am glad he is not in charge now.
That is becoming a day to day occurrence...just look at the DPW - ports fabrication and how many "conservatives" feel for it.
BTTT
That's great. What happened to Napoleon's army in Egypt? Oh that's right, his invasion was a failure and he was cut off by the British, an army which eventually surrendered to the British. That's exactly who I would take my historical notes from Colonel...
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.
I'll go with Buckley. He has an understanding far beyond someone who is currently in Iraq and wants to believe in his cause.
No doubt there are some members of the militias who have made their way into the military and police, but they are being weeded out. Those who stood by and did nothing during the dust up will be called to task. I think the upshot of this is that a secular minister will be appointed to Dept of Interior and that will be quickly brought under control. That has been helped by Sistani asking the tribes to protect the shrines, a duty the so called militias were formed to do. That is the first step to disbanding the Shiia militias.
EVERYONE would get creamed and they finally figured that out. The Shiia who want an independent state are minions of Iran. The "independent state" would exist for all of a week before it was taken over by Iran. The Sunni would be almost wiped out before the surrounding Sunni states could step in, the Kurds would be walled off in the north to forever watch their pipelines blown to bits, their vision of a thriving economy go up in smoke as the rest of Iraq faced years of chaos.
No, it would be ugly for all of them and most Iraqis have figured that out.
Shiite Iran is bidding to be the leader of the Islamic super state, I am still waiting to see which state will bid to be the Sunni/Wabe alternative.
Hard to imagine western styled secular democracies taking root in such an environment. But even harder still to imagine would be the West/India allowing such an Islamic Super State to come into existance.
I think you have missed the point of the Colonel's historical allusion. It has nothing to do with the fate of Napoleon's army in Egypt (the strategic situations are not comparable). Rather, he is pointing out the contrast between the due process offered by the French and the murderous destructiveness of the extremist Muslims. Obviously, a similar contrast exists today between United States and our enemies.
So yes, you probably should take historical notes from the Colonel.
I'll go with Buckley. He has an understanding far beyond someone who is currently in Iraq and wants to believe in his cause.
Thus far, Mr. Buckley has yet to demonstrate his greater understanding of Iraq. I would wait to see what specific measures Mr. Buckley proposes (if any) before taking him seriously.
I believe Mr. Buckley has a very strong grasp of history, something 'conservatives' by their actions cannot say. Let's say Mr. Buckley proposes withdrawal at some future point. And as more conservative commentators wake up from the myopia of partisanship they have been in, they agree with Mr. Buckley. I mean we've already had a 'Mission Accomplished' banner and a few elections replete with purple fingers. What else is there to do?
Let's also say that as civil war breaks out in Iraq (which it will eventually) that is the only viable military decision. Will 'conservatives' then accept Mr. Buckley's views? Or will they continue to support administration policy of 'spreading democracy'?
He had a strong grasp of history once but he's sadly lacking in the kind of real situational knowledge of Iraq that Lieutenant Colonel Kanaley has.
Please see my 33 and tell me what other choice we have other then to stay and fight for a secular Iraq. thx
I'm not saying they lack will in Iraq. I'm saying they should have had the resolve to deliver the wood to Syria and risk conflagration (if it came to that) in order to rid the poison from Iraq. The same with Iran. If you're busy subduing a tiger, you may have to call in a few extra zookeepers to deal with the polar bears coming over and attacking you from the next cage you left unguarded. The ugly truth of our traitorous liberal elements is that they've managed to politicize the war and put this administration on the defensive.
We should not have entered this war without the willingness to take on all comers. That's my unprofessional opinion. I'm sure most people here would disagree with that, but let's face it - once we're gone, does anyone seriously believe these people will co-exist in peace?
Spoken just like Terry McAuliffe. Pathetic.
Say, Billy, what did Dubya say during his speech in front of said banner? Hmmmm?
It's hard to imagine because that's not what they want. Of course you'll see the comparisons of Japan and Germany from those to refuse to accept reality but it doesn't change the facts. You've made the point quite clearly. These are nothing more than nation states established by British map makers.
The only concern I have in the region is Israel. And there I believe in full 100 percent protection of said state. However this protection does not include an offensive action on every Arabic state in the region.
The West may very well not have the ability to stop the rise of the Islamic superstate. By trying to establish a democracy in the region (the right to choose one's own form of government) it possibly could have laid the groundwork for an even quicker establishment of such a state. And considering long term relations, it very well may not want to stop it. It could even bring stabilization to the region.
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.