Iraq Is Not Lost (Must Read refutes Buckley)

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

[Palladin]

Very good rebuttal.

However, since no one pays any attention to Buckley anymore, it was hardly necessary.

[armymarinemom]

I hope it does too. I do wish that Buckley had read the reports from the DoD about Stability and Security in Iraq rather than glean his data from the New York Times. Perhaps retirement has lead him to be more lackadaisical in his research.

[jpsb]

I think we are in general agreement, accept that I don't think the West (usa/uk) has any choice but to try to seed secular democratic government in Iraq, most likely the winds of muslin nationalism will sweep us out of the area but maybe just maybe we (west) and the Iraqis will succeed. Certainly worth a try as the price for failure will be very very high.

[APRPEH]

maybe just maybe it is the arabs who are losing Iraq?

[new yorker 77]

If you take pride in urinating and defecating on troops that you pretend to care about, then you can say crap that sounds like someone as biased and obtuse as Terry McCauliffe.

Sarcasm is nice for people like Bill Maher. It is also a useful tool for those who speak a lot but say nothing.

Iraq is only a failure to those sheltered in their own disconnect from the men and women reenlisting in record numbers to go back. I prefer to support these brave, successful volunteers rather than sarcastically mock their efforts.

When you call their effort a failure, you call them failures.

I prefer to say 'thank you', 'job well done' and 'keep up the good work'.

[billbears]

I read it. It flew in the face of everything Adams warned us of in 1821. But hell that was just the son of one of the Framers. What could he know about the intended role of these United States in world affairs when compared to the wisdom of Bush? Freedom for the Iraqis? Sounds quite similar to enlisting our banner under the banner of 'foreign independence'. Also note Bush used the 9/11-Iraq ties excuse in that speech which have for the most part been discounted by now. Well except for true believers like yourself...

Tell us Coop. Every good military strategy, actually any strategy, should have certain goals outlined to meet so one can claim a project is finished. What are your watermarks? Your test points? If these points aren't met on a regular basis, do you change your views? Or does that just happen when the 'wrong' party comes to power?

[freema]

I disagree.

This is an exceptional outstanding rebuttal.

"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."

I remarked just recently that George Washington and his soldiers at Valley Forge would probably have a very interesting take on some Americans, given the sacrifices made then to create this country relative to the slight of sacrifices made now to keep this country.

Additionally, I find it interesting to ponder the point made elsewhere that the iron fist with which Saddam ruled was necessary to keep his country as opposed to the iron fist with which I believe President Bush holds all precious freedom.

[Coop]

I presume you meant your post for someone else.

[Coop]

Also note Bush used the 9/11-Iraq ties excuse in that speech which have for the most part been discounted by now.

If by "discounted" you mean "reinforced" then for once I am in agreement with FR's resident armchair general pessimist.

What a complete disgrace you are...

[new yorker 77]

Sorry Coop.

[DuncanWaring]

"..One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed...

Sounds almost Cronkitian.

[SoFloFreeper]

I'll stick with the people on the ground. They tend to know more about the facts in the theatre than someone three thousand miles away.

[jammer]

Why give more coverage to this article? It uses straw men--the main one being that Buckley postulated those things. Buckley didn't postulate them. Those came from the Wilsonian delusions of "democracy" so often repeated by President Bush.

[Cecily]

Reuel Marc Gerecht used to sound and write sensibly, but I have read some very strange articles by him in the past two years or so. His view of the Shia theocrats and how America should relate to them is off kilter in my opinion.