View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by George Shadroui |
March 1st, 2006
Only an Iraqi security force, tough and focused, can weed out the terrorists who are wreaking havoc on the innocent people there.
It was rather fascinating recently to listen to Rush Limbaugh try to explain William F. Buckley Jr.’s position on Iraq.
He was careful, oh so careful, as he should be. Like many conservatives, Limbaugh's political ideas were forged by the writings and persona of Buckley, who was and remains the most impressive conservative intellectual force of the past half century.
Here is what Buckley wrote this past week on Iraq: “One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed….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.”
Limbaugh, asked to comment on the column, did his best to be respectful while disagreeing. He pointed out, for example, that other writers at National Review, the magazine Buckley founded, have reached different conclusions. Victor Davis Hanson, for example, wrote a piece arguing that with patience America and the Iraqi people could still overcome the challenges they confront. Hanson was hardly glib — he acknowledged just how complex the challenge is.
Again, the question now is an existential one: Can the United States — or anyone — in the middle of a war against Islamic fascism, rebuild the most important country in the heart of the Middle East, after 30 years of utter oppression, three wars, and an Orwellian, totalitarian dictator warping of the minds of the populace? And can anyone navigate between a Zarqawi, a Sadr, and the Sunni rejectionists, much less the legions of Iranian agents, Saudi millionaires, and Syrian provocateurs who each day live to destroy what’s going on in Iraq?
And this is from the optimist in the crowd. Buckley did not back away from his pessimistic conclusion. In his next column, he wrote the following: “In four years we marched from Pearl Harbor to the heart of what was left of Tokyo and Berlin. In three years we can't yet take a cab from Baghdad to its airport without an armed guard.”
Buckley is a conservative who understands, as he has written in the past, that some problems are intractable. If we cannot solve the problems of crime on our own streets, is it not presumptuous to imagine we can solve the problem of crime in Iraq? If we cannot educate adequately many of our own beloved children in arguably the richest, most powerful nation on earth, why should we be optimistic that we can undo the collective brainwashing that has shaped the Middle East and Iraq for generations?
None of this is to concede the basic principle. Saddam was a madman and a tyrant. He deserved to be deposed as much as any ruler since Stalin. He ruled with the cold ruthlessness of a mafia Don and likewise celebrated the crushing cruelties of his regime. That he is still alive is a testimony to the patience of the rule of law.
Moreover, in a post 9/11 world the calculations that led Bush to pursue ousting Saddam and his regime were understandable. They were also based on intelligence that has since been shown to be flawed, just as administration expectations of what would transpire in the aftermath of the invasion were inaccurate. For while it is true that Bush never promised a rose garden, it is safe to say that he would not have pursued the war had he known, three years later, how close to the edge of civil war Iraq would find itself.
Good wishes and sincerity are not enough. Along with Christopher Hitchens, I was one of those who hoped and prayed for a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq. I was even willing to watch my nation spill precious blood in the hope that our military efforts would lead to a just end, and a new dynamic in the region. These hopes were rooted not in imperialist designs, but in the understanding that without some kind of paradigm shift, Iraqis would continue to suffer interminably and terrorists would continue to find safe houses throughout the region.
But Buckley’s point cannot be ignored. The chance to secure Iraq quickly and decisively was squandered. Terrorists continue to function with devastating results. Iraq’s capacity to defend itself might be improving, but it is a slow process and one not yet adequately tested. Until the Iraqis mobilize to determine their own fate, and do so with the same fierce determination of their enemies, no amount of American military might will suffice short of doing to parts of Iraq what was done to parts of Japan and Germany. To demolish the shadowy opposition in this way would be akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer — and would earn our nation more enemies on the ground and more defiance even among those we would call our allies. Even now, many Iraqis are holding America accountable for its inability to contain terrorist activity. Like Limbaugh, such people have bought into the mythologies of American power. This is a short road to nowhere.
Only an Iraqi security force, tough and focused, can weed out the terrorists who are wreaking havoc on the innocent people there. Such a force must have the contacts, the cultural and language skills, and the local knowledge that has enabled other Arab states — such as Egypt — to crush radical and terrorist opposition, often with great efficiency. The question Buckley and Hanson are both asking, though perhaps with different answers, is simply this: how long do we stay the course and at what cost?
Defeating our enemies and the terrorists with whom we are at war requires deliberate, shrewd and flexible strategies and tactics. We will win some and we will suffer setbacks, too. We need not be ashamed that we made an honest effort to liberate two nations being held at knife point; nor should we be so blinded by a desire for victory that we lose touch with reality.
Iraq is in trouble. Only Iraqis can save it. That is Buckley’s point and it really isn’t debatable. Which means? The clock is ticking. The longer it takes the United States to transfer vital military and security issues to Iraqis, the less our chances of succeeding.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Visit their website at:
Responses to "Iraqi Realities: Buckley vs. Limbaugh"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It isn't unexpected that Limbaugh gives due deference to his hero Buckley. But Limbaugh has had much more to say about Iraq than just the isolated comments cited by the author. Limbaugh is at once pragmatic and optimistic. He is critical of Bush when Bush deserves it, and defends him when appropriate.
Limbaugh has been far more balanced and insightful regarding Iraq than most anyone I can think of. Certainly more than the antique media could ever hope to be.
Comment by Rich Sherlock | March 1, 2006
I hate to sound like a broken record (people Mr. Buckley’s age will remember that term), but the Antique Media is part of the issue. Due to hypersensitivity, exacerbated by Antique Media, the U. S. Military isn’t allowed to fight the way we did in WWII. And don’t forget, the occupation of Germany and Japan lasted many years. Mr. Buckley may remember his old phonographs, but seems to forget actual history in this case.
Comment by Mike Carlson | March 1, 2006
The situation is not going to get any better until Saddam does his mid-air choreography. As long as he lives, there is terrorist hope that he can return to rule.
This is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Comment by G of Sedona | March 1, 2006
Mr. Carlson, if we are going to talk about people forgetting their history, perhaps we should talk about the fact that conservatives in America were historically against foreign intervention. Conservatives opposed the Spanish American War, our entry into WWI and our entry into WWII for example. The "conservative movement" abandoned this historic position during the Cold War as fighting Communism became the major issue. Remember it was muddleheaded liberals like Wilson who wanted to use the military to bring democracy to the world. Non-intervention and non-entanglement is the only policy consistent with small government conservatism. Interventionism is a form of Utopian liberalism no matter how much it tries to disguise itself as conservative.
Comment by Red Phillips | March 1, 2006
Love the last line of your post Red. As a devout conservative, I couldn't agree more. I would use our military in a much uglier and non-humane way for our enemies. Bomb the hell out of them. The tight-roping between friend and foe in Vietnam, and now in Iraq proves one thing, politcally correct equals unnecessary loss of U.S. Soldiers. We need to end this concept of saving the world one country at a time and start focusing on our own. In the immortal words of Elvis its time to "Clean up our own backyard." Only Iraqies can win the war within their country. We can provide assistance, but only when those citizens have a common goal of democracy will freedom ever be obtained.
Comment by Honker | March 3, 2006
There is a way to reconcile these opposing arguments, which is to acknowledge the grander strategy that Iraq will serve as a platform for neutralizing Iran and Syria. The “democratization” is a nice collateral component that served (albeit poorly) the attempts by the administration to market the invasion plan, but the reality is that the flow of the insurgent “rat lines” will be reversed once the country is stabilized, and Iraq will serve as our “Channel crossing” for WWIII (which, by the way, this war on terror surely is). We can all agree that Bush didn’t sell the war well to the public, but he’s been crystal clear on his main point - that this is a global war that we will fight to victorious conclusion. One can argue tactically as to whether we should have started in North Africa during WWII and slugged it up the Italian peninsula, but not – among sensible people - whether we were right to destroy the Third Reich. “Carthago Delenda Est” – Islamo-fascism is going to be eradicated – by us - and having a democratic Iraq at our back will prove to have been a useful initial step.
Comment by Harry Flynn | March 5, 2006
So…being a conservative means you support killing people you don't agree with? Some positions are so far to the left, they come back to the right. Guess what, New York City took the brunt of the attack, and didn't vote to re-elect Bush by a large margin. If the people that lost the most didn't agree with the president's plan, I wonder what it is the rest of the country is so afraid of?
"Moreover, in a post 9/11 world the calculations that led Bush to pursue ousting Saddam and his regime were understandable" is a sentence that ignores the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What's so understandable, the president of the United States can't wait, say, one month before waging war against a country that hasn't attacked us?
"…it is safe to say that he would not have pursued the war had he known, three years later, how close to the edge of civil war Iraq would find itself." It is safe to say my 16 year old son wouldn't have taken that turn so fast if he'd known he was going to wreck the family car, the president of the United States has to be smarter than that. A first year Political Science undergrad could have predicted the course of this war.
Comment by Jumbo | March 7, 2006
re: post 7 - "So…being a conservative means you support killing people you don’t agree with?" Caricature is not reasoned rebuttal. And killing those who would otherwise kill you is hardly a political pose. The NYC poll results are irrelevant and silly; we might as well ask if Hawaiians supported Dewey over FDR. Lastly, predicting the course of any war with certainty is beyond the grasp of history's greatest strategists, let alone your hypothetical undergrad; but perhaps we all lack your omniscience.
Comment by HF | March 7, 2006
no wmd…no al queda link…as many iraqi civilians dying from civil unrest and violence as from hussein per year…a big lie and staged war…haliburton getting juicy no bid contracts from government run by its investors - taxpayer money to corporation via government…skyrocketting deficits…country stretched so thin it cannot effectively deal with natural disasters…
ah, "conservatism"
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
After reading the article I am once again struck by the fact that untill true Conservatives admit that the whole Iraq adventure is not only based on lies but is in fact a lie in itself we will not take the movement forward.
Add to this the fact that Bush is more of a Liberal in terms of spending etc. than Bill Clinton ever was and Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) should be at the castle walls demanding the ouster of Bush and an imediate election of a true Conservative leader.
Lastly comparing Rush Limbaugh to Buckley is preposterous. Limbaugh is nothing more than a P.T. Barnem type figure whose drug addled mind is no where near the league of Buckley.
T.D.
Comment by Dominic Cotasna | March 13, 2006
After reading the article I am once again struck by the fact that untill true Conservatives admit that the whole Iraq adventure is not only based on lies but is in fact a lie in itself we will not take the movement forward.
Add to this the fact that Bush is more of a Liberal in terms of spending etc. than Bill Clinton ever was and Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) should be at the castle walls demanding the ouster of Bush and an imediate election of a true Conservative leader.
Lastly comparing Rush Limbaugh to Buckley is preposterous. Limbaugh is nothing more than a P.T. Barnem type figure whose drug addled mind is no where near the league of Buckley.
Dominic C.
Comment by Dominic Cotasna | March 13, 2006
re: posts 9-11 - please read current (May/June 2006) FOREIGN AFFAIRS, "Saddam's Delusions:
The View From The Inside" by Woods, Lacey, & Murray, and we'll have no more of the
petulant "Bush Lied" mantra.
HF
Comment by Harry Flynn | March 23, 2006
As I read these comments, I think many people fail to recognize just how dangerous the world situation is. This radical islam is not new. It's been growing for decades, we've been attacked by it many times. Our mistake was allowing it to grow stronger. Now we have the combined threat of radical islam and nuclear technology in that part of the world. Does everyone forget these radical groups have threatened and sought the overthrow of governments in that area including a nuclear pakistan? How foolish to think we can pull out of Iraq and avoid greater disaster in the future. I like the comments I read earlier: Iraq is not the breeding ground of terrorists, it's the killing fields of terrorists.
Comment by Paul | June 15, 2006