The Buckley Philosophy - Flopping Aces

Ed Morrissey writes today about the William Buckley opinion piece in which he declared the war in Iraq a failure:

Buckley puts pen to paper to declare the American intervention in Iraq a failure, a position which undoubtedly many leftists will hail as a new schism on the right:

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 Samara 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.Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren’t on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors.

One hesitates to get into an argument with the icon of conservative philosophy, but in this case, Buckley isn’t reversing course; he’s expounding an argument that conservatives (paleoconservatives, if you will) have always made in terms of foreign engagement. His argument appears sound on a superficial level because it only addresses the actions of the moment. The insurgents won an important but momentary victory when they successfully collapsed the shrine of Askariya, but what Buckley wants to do is to grant them the war by default.

Buckley also erects somewhat of a strawman in this passage, one that exposes the real intent of his essay:

It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others’ throats.

And here we have the essential Buckley, revealed. The traditional conservative position reached its most potent expression in the policies of Brent Scowcroft, the last bastion of realpolitik in government. Conservatives for decades fought against foreign entanglements and the liberation of people from tyranny for its own sake, only espousing military intervention when clear and short-term American economic or strategic interests came under threat. Buckley and Scowcroft would never have suggested that the US depose Saddam Hussein, mostly because they would not have thought that the oppression and genocide of Iraqis was worth the expense and headache of liberation. That thought kept the US from pushing through to Baghdad in 1991, when Scowcroft had Bush 41’s ear, and when Saddam could have easily been toppled.

Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world.

He then proceeds to explain his argument in a well written piece that should be read in it’s entirety.

A true isolationist will see Iraq as a failure whichever way it end’s. Hell, they would term it a failure the moment we stepped foot in the country. So why the left is drooling over Buckley’s article is beyond me. Do they think us conservatives are all one in the same? I can tell you one thing, I have NEVER been a isolationist conservative, and never will be. Look where that kind of philosophy has gotten us over the history of this country.

This article by Buckley is quite embarrasing actually. The worst kind of kneejerk reporting I’ve seen from the right in sometime. He looks at the violence and declares it the start of the end when nothing can be further from the truth: (via Powerline)

“Large (peaceful) demonstrations broke out again today in Basra, protesting the heinous attacks on a Shiite shrine in Samarah. Over 100,000 protesters participated chanting condemnations against the attacks and calling for self-restraint and following religious instructions (from leading religious references) for calm. Sheik Abdul Husein Almuhamdawi (a religious leader in the province) said; ‘Local national Shiite committees have been formed to protect local Sunni mosques from over zealous individuals.’ A source in the local Basra police leadership mentioned that ‘Talha’ mosque and two other mosques in southern Basrah were subject to light gunfire but no one was injured.”

It’s almost an article you would think was written by a lefty.? Take for example this paragraph from his article:

“Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.”

The same arguments we have heard time and time again from the Democrats, “they cannot have a Democracy because they know no better”. Sad, tired, and pathetic argument.

Based on his writings over the past few years I bet he believes we lost in the Tet Offensive.? He is turning into Goldwater as he ages apparently.
I don’t like quitters

Other’s Blogging:

The same arguments we have heard time and time again from the Democrats, “they cannot have a Democracy because they know no better”. Sad, tired, and pathetic argument.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

Curt

See author page