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

[ElliotR]

Another one of those hard-left America Haters, William F. Buckley, calls on Bush to "acknowledg[e] . . . defeat":

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

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. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." 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.

A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.

One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

[PoBoy321]

I saw WFB Jr. talk at my school last. year. He wasn't very funny.

[BluffTHIS!]

Raise the bar.

Impose an artificial time contstraint for a plan to succeed and then label it failure when that artificial deadline isn't met.

Same-o lib dumocrat NOT!ism.

[madnak]

As I recall, Bush has made many predictions about the Iraq timeline, all of which have been flat wrong. I also recall him making a statement along the lines of "mission accomplished." Or was that my imagination?

[SkinnyPuppy]

i love that.... "mission accomplished." like GW has done something great for America by attacking another country. i forgot it was saddam who bombed us on 9/11, its a good thing we got him! that bin laden guy is no real threat i doubt

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise the bar.

Impose an artificial time contstraint for a plan to succeed and then label it failure when that artificial deadline isn't met.

Same-o lib dumocrat NOT!ism.

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't seriously calling WFB a liberal democrat, are you? If so, I think you need to see a pshrink because you're losing touch with reality, big time.

[andyfox]

The usual Buckley nonsense, obscured by his virtually unreadable prose. The best I could make out is that Buckley wants Bush to admit the policy failed in Iraq but the general principles are sound. If that's the case, the principles obviously shouldn't be considered general. They failed a generation ago in Vietnam too.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

You aren't seriously calling WFB a liberal democrat, are you? If so, I think you need to see a pshrink because you're losing touch with reality, big time.
************************************************
It seemed obvious to me he was referring to Elliot as being the liberal democrat setting the artificial deadline. WFB is well known for being a conservative icons so it never entered my mind that he was not referring to Elliot.

The Iraq situation has not played itself out just yet. They haven't even been able to form a govt coalition yet. I think it is too early to tell. There are a lot of good things happening.

*GDP in Iraq has been growing 10% per year despite the oil production being lower than pre-war levels.
*14 of the 18 provinces of Iraq are peaceful.
*We are finnaly getting some Iraqi units which will stand up to the insurgents instead of running a way.
*The insurgents have been alienting the Iraqi population more than winning them over. This attack on the mosque is the act of desparation and not strength. The next few days will be critical.

Their are a lot of troubling things.
(1) There constitution is DEEPLY flawed. There religious council which can veto unislamic laws is a horrible idea. Not only will is creat friction between Sunnis and Shias on whose version of Islam is on this council but laws regarding usury will be instantly vetoed. I read a story of a Turkish man who wanted to invest in his company's 401K. His Iman said earning interest was a sin so that man did not participate. Just imagine the number of financial laws that will be vetoed by this backward thinking.
(2) The bombings are troubling. Will the Iraqis rise up against the insurgents or will they cower in fear. We shall see.

We need to give the new Iraqi govt about 5 years minimum to see if they can govern. No doubt Bush43 has mismanage the Iraq occupation but even on his worse day Bush43 is a better man for the job than Kerry or Gore.

Thomas Friedman had some ineresting thoughts of the mosque bombing. He took it as a sign the USA/Iraq was winning. So we have William F Buckley on one side and Thomas Friedman on the other.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't seriously calling WFB a liberal democrat, are you? If so, I think you need to see a pshrink because you're losing touch with reality, big time.
************************************************
It seemed obvious to me he was referring to Elliot as being the liberal democrat setting the artificial deadline. WFB is well known for being a conservative icons so it never entered my mind that he was not referring to Elliot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Elliot didn't post anything but the actual article? Was the only purpose to call Elliot names? Very childish if that was the point.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise the bar.

Impose an artificial time contstraint for a plan to succeed and then label it failure when that artificial deadline isn't met.

Same-o lib dumocrat NOT!ism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may email your comments to Mr. Buckley at [email protected]