Iraq Is Not Lost (Must Read refutes Buckley)

Real Clear Politics ^ | February 27,2006 | Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley

[Angel]

I hope this gets more coverage.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Have we heard anything from Buckley since his article?

[SoFloFreeper]

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.

[in hoc signo vinces]

This piece makes way to much sense to have mainstream appeal.

[prognostigaator]

bump

[Anti-Bubba182]

It Didn't Work (Iraq is Lost)

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.

Iraqi Sunni Bloc to Rejoin Talks on Government

[twigs]

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.

[Restorer]

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.

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.

[in hoc signo vinces]

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.

[Fee]

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.

[Coop]

This is a giant problem that cannot be dismissed by simply saying he is wrong.

Nor can the stunning success of the Iraqi military and police be dismissed by you or Mr. Buckley simply saying "They've failed."

[Coop]

Outstanding rebuttal by a light colonel on the ground in Baghdad.

[hawkaw]

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.

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.

[kellynch]

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.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I think they will see reason, either through their own minority status in Iraq or with Iran ready to take advantage of a fragmented Iraq.

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.

[bayourant]

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

[Skooz]

I have the greatest level of respect for Mr. Buckley, and I speak his name with reverence.

But, I suspect he is succumbing to the same dementia that afflicted the other great conservative icon, Barry Goldwater.

Toward the end of his life, Goldwater could barely make a logical statement and he said some very damning things about conservatives, mainly because he had no clue what he was talking about. The MSM, notably the classless mutoids at the Today Show, made much game of the old man's folly.

I hope the same fate does not befall Buckley.

[Cap Huff]

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.

[Allegra]

He has apparently relied upon the New York Times to provide a ‘man on the street’ quote from an Iraqi businessman.

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.

[Allegra]

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.

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.