Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Buckley Says U.S. Mission in Iraq Has Failed

Originally posted on February 25, 2006:  Buckley Says U.S. Mission in Iraq Has Failed

Highlights

"Buckley is being extremely quick to declare defeat in Iraq after sectarian violence arising from the bombing of the Shiite mosque. The bombing occurred barely a few days ago. The dust has not even had time to settle, nor have tempers had time to cool, yet Buckley is already throwing in the towel. That seems rather odd to me. Maybe Buckley is far more prescient than me, which is certainly possible. Maybe he has not had enough experiences in life where he has faced difficult odds or sudden apparent defeats, and overcome them anyway.  . . . .

"Buckley's claim that America has failed in Iraq is too much based on dramatic events of this past week that have yet to fully unfold.  I have to conclude that Buckley has fallen prey to defeatism."

Buckley Says U.S. Mission in Iraq Has Failed

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has an excellent analysis of today's opinion piece by William F. Buckley on the Iraq war.  Buckley essentially throws in the towel on the Iraq war, which will undoubtedly delight anyone who has opposed the war all along.

Ed Morrissey deftly analyzes Buckley's current position within the context of the long-standing tension between conservatives who favor avoiding foreign entanglements, even if it means allowing tyrants to thrive abroad, and conservatives and liberals alike who believe that threats around the world can produce immediate and existential threats at home, making isolationism untenable. 

The isolationist approach to world events was historically prudent for America.  However, isolationism will become less and less tenable as time goes by.  The world is shrinking very rapidly in this age of high-speed transportation, satellite technology, the internet, and advanced telecommunications. 

It is increasingly true that threats arising in places on the other side of the world will rapidly arrive at our own doorstep, whether we seek them out or not.  We will have to be engaged in the world, whether we like it or not.

Buckley is being extremely quick to declare defeat in Iraq after sectarian violence arising from the bombing of the Shiite mosque.  The bombing occurred barely a few days ago.  The dust has not even had time to settle, nor have tempers had time to cool, yet Buckley is already throwing in the towel.  That seems rather odd to me. 

Maybe Buckley is far more prescient than me, which is certainly possible.  Maybe he has not had enough experiences in life where he has faced difficult odds or sudden apparent defeats, and overcome them anyway.  Maybe Buckley has had lingering doubts about the war that have finally been triggered by the mosque bombing. 

For now, all I can say with certainty is that Buckley's announcement that America has failed in its Iraq mission is too sudden and too thinly supported by the opinion piece he wrote.  If he is to be believed, it will take more than a few quotes from sources such as a "New York Times reporter . . .  quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq" who blames America for everything and the opinion of an American Enterprise institute fellow, also quoted in the same New York Times, stating that the bombing has "completely demolished" what America is seeking to accomplish. 

Buckley argues that the two postulates of the war were 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" and that "the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence." 

Yes, these were and are two postulates.  Who says that our time to achieve these goals has already expired?  If so, why?  Who is deciding how much time remains on the clock, and for what purpose, and by what yardstick?  Where is the cost-benefit analysis in all of this? 

History demands a longer view.  It would be bizarre indeed if America were to reverse its entire policy on the Iraq war starting three days after a mosque bombing and resulting sectarian violence.  Change takes time.  Building up a new tradition of religious tolerance in Iraq will take time.  One would hope that the violence of this past week will be a learning experience about how self-defeating sectarian violence ultimately is.  Building up Iraq's internal security takes time. 

Buckley's claim that America has failed in Iraq is too much based on dramatic events of this past week that have yet to fully unfold.  I have to conclude that Buckley has fallen prey to defeatism.

_________________________

Update:  Buckley's piece will be widely discussed in the blogosphere.  One early reaction is from Below the Beltway, arguing that the Iraq war is not a "failure" but that Buckley may have point regarding the secondary mission of creating a democratic, unified Iraq.

And world events have a way of marching on without regard to any of the pundits.  Ed Morrissey weighs in again with "Cancel the Hysteria," pointing out that Moqtada al-Sadr has already reached a truce with Sunni leaders to stop the attacks on the mosques.  Of course, this truce may or may not be a lasting end to the latest wave of violence.  With time will come greater clarity.

Buckley Says U.S. Mission in Iraq Has Failed

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has an excellent analysis of today's opinion piece by William F. Buckley on the Iraq war.  Buckley essentially throws in the towel on the Iraq war, which will undoubtedly delight anyone who has opposed the war all along.

Ed Morrissey deftly analyzes Buckley's current position within the context of the long-standing tension between conservatives who favor avoiding foreign entanglements, even if it means allowing tyrants to thrive abroad, and conservatives and liberals alike who believe that threats around the world can produce immediate and existential threats at home, making isolationism untenable. 

The isolationist approach to world events was historically prudent for America.  However, isolationism will become less and less tenable as time goes by.  The world is shrinking very rapidly in this age of high-speed transportation, satellite technology, the internet, and advanced telecommunications. 

It is increasingly true that threats arising in places on the other side of the world will rapidly arrive at our own doorstep, whether we seek them out or not.  We will have to be engaged in the world, whether we like it or not.

Buckley is being extremely quick to declare defeat in Iraq after sectarian violence arising from the bombing of the Shiite mosque.  The bombing occurred barely a few days ago.  The dust has not even had time to settle, nor have tempers had time to cool, yet Buckley is already throwing in the towel.  That seems rather odd to me. 

Maybe Buckley is far more prescient than me, which is certainly possible.  Maybe he has not had enough experiences in life where he has faced difficult odds or sudden apparent defeats, and overcome them anyway.  Maybe Buckley has had lingering doubts about the war that have finally been triggered by the mosque bombing. 

For now, all I can say with certainty is that Buckley's announcement that America has failed in its Iraq mission is too sudden and too thinly supported by the opinion piece he wrote.  If he is to be believed, it will take more than a few quotes from sources such as a "New York Times reporter . . .  quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq" who blames America for everything and the opinion of an American Enterprise institute fellow, also quoted in the same New York Times, stating that the bombing has "completely demolished" what America is seeking to accomplish. 

Buckley argues that the two postulates of the war were 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" and that "the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence." 

Yes, these were and are two postulates.  Who says that our time to achieve these goals has already expired?  If so, why?  Who is deciding how much time remains on the clock, and for what purpose, and by what yardstick?  Where is the cost-benefit analysis in all of this? 

History demands a longer view.  It would be bizarre indeed if America were to reverse its entire policy on the Iraq war starting three days after a mosque bombing and resulting sectarian violence.  Change takes time.  Building up a new tradition of religious tolerance in Iraq will take time.  One would hope that the violence of this past week will be a learning experience about how self-defeating sectarian violence ultimately is.  Building up Iraq's internal security takes time. 

Buckley's claim that America has failed in Iraq is too much based on dramatic events of this past week that have yet to fully unfold.  I have to conclude that Buckley has fallen prey to defeatism.

_________________________

Update:  Buckley's piece will be widely discussed in the blogosphere.  One early reaction is from Below the Beltway, arguing that the Iraq war is not a "failure" but that Buckley may have point regarding the secondary mission of creating a democratic, unified Iraq.

And world events have a way of marching on without regard to any of the pundits.  Ed Morrissey weighs in again with "Cancel the Hysteria," pointing out that Moqtada al-Sadr has already reached a truce with Sunni leaders to stop the attacks on the mosques.  Of course, this truce may or may not be a lasting end to the latest wave of violence.  With time will come greater clarity.