William F. Buckley on Iraq 1-15-07

[Arkaign]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20070115/cm_ucwb/yesornotobush

I think this was the most potent tidbit :

"A geographical division of Iraq is inevitable. The major players are obvious. It isn't plain how the United States, as an outside party, could play an effective role, let alone one that was decisive, in that national redefinition. And the United States would do well to encourage non-U.S. agents to act as brokers -- people with names like Ban Ki-moon."

Whether or not you are 'right' or 'left', you have to respect his honesty and individuality. He exhibits what modern 'conservative' politicians are sorely lacking : integrity and pragmatism.

 

[Red Dawn]

If only todays Republicans were like him and Barry Goldwater.

 

[techs]

Ban Ki-moon?
I must admit I had to google.
Its the new Secretary General of the United Nations.
I think Buckleys point and the point of this thread is that both Democrats and Republicans would not have invaded Iraq. Only neo-cons like Bush and the neo-cons in Congress.
As a third political ideology, neo-conism sucks.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If only todays Republicans were like him and Barry Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater would be labeled a traitorous, bleeding heart librul by today's neo-con party. It's a shame. There could be 3 distinct parties in our near future.

 

[dennilfloss]

Always respected Bill Buckley. I miss his television program. 🙁

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly view Buckley as a conservative mind of some duration---but I also see him as morally bankrupt----but even with a long head start, not as far in arrears as some like GWB&co and his merry band of con men.--although Cheney and Rumsfeld have been involved with much skulduggery for the past 30 years.

But at least even Buckley puts a political settlement on the table---and thats some progress but hardly a preemptive strike on Baker Hamilton.

 

[Phokus]

I noticed a lot of the old guard neo-conservatives (i.e. buckley, francis fukyama) have been more honest about the situation than the younger ones (i.e. everyone at the national review not named william f. buckley). Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the old guard is nearing retirement while the youngsters are still trying to make a career for themselves? 😀

 

[Arkaign]

I've noticed this with a lot of older people. They simply lose the pretentious nature of trying to tell people what they want to hear, or kowtowing to any particular group. A lot of them will just simply say what's on their mind directly. Pretty interesting stuff, really.

 

[sandorski]

"Conservatism" has been taken over by hoodlums. Full of hot air, lacking in useful Ideas, lemmingly partisan, mindlessly sloganeering, and if there was a such a thing as a "Liberal" they'd have nothing to discuss. Modern "Conservatism" is barely about anything anymore.

It's time for the Intellectual Conservatives to take back Conservatism.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Conservatism" has been taken over by hoodlums. Full of hot air, lacking in useful Ideas, lemmingly partisan, mindlessly sloganeering, and if there was a such a thing as a "Liberal" they'd have nothing to discuss. Modern "Conservatism" is barely about anything anymore.

It's time for the Intellectual Conservatives to take back Conservatism.

Many people (not I) argue that a relatively small cadre of NeoCon intellectuals have "hi-jacked" the movement. So what is it... ?

While we're on contradictions, you say modern conservatism is barely about anything anymore, yet all I hear is outcry from the left about countless horrible conservative ideas... so what is it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski
"Conservatism" has been taken over by hoodlums. Full of hot air, lacking in useful Ideas, lemmingly partisan, mindlessly sloganeering, and if there was a such a thing as a "Liberal" they'd have nothing to discuss. Modern "Conservatism" is barely about anything anymore.

It's time for the Intellectual Conservatives to take back Conservatism.

Many people (not I) argue that a relatively small cadre of NeoCon intellectuals have "hi-jacked" the movement. So what is it... ?

While we're on contradictions, you say modern conservatism is barely about anything anymore, yet all I hear is outcry from the left about countless horrible conservative ideas... so what is it?

"useful"

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sandorski

"useful"

Ah, useful conservative intellectuals. That carries a lot of weight coming from a left-leaning person such as yourself. I sorta take it to mean "conservatives I can agree with."

Anyhoo...

 

[Narmer]

The Republican Party needs to remove every last neocon to get any respect in my books. The infiltration by these former Democrats has rotted the Party of Lincoln to its core.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If only todays Republicans were like him and Barry Goldwater.

Especially like Barry.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

"useful"

Ah, useful conservative intellectuals. That carries a lot of weight coming from a left-leaning person such as yourself. I sorta take it to mean "conservatives I can agree with."

Anyhoo...

Not a "liberal", but anyway.

I don't care whether I agree with a Conservative or not, I just want them to offer something more than condemnation of liberals. Like a well thought out view on a subject, whose arguement does not anchor itself to the idea that "liberals are bad".

Example:

Tax Cuts

1) Good arguement: Historically Tax Cuts have proven to increase Economic activity, thereby in time Tax Revenues are recovered through GDP Growth.

2) Bad arguement: Liberals are going to destroy this country with their Tax and Spend shenanigans!!!

The Conservative Intellectual will tend towards 1, the blowhards towards 2.

Conservative or Liberal Ideas should be able to stand on their own merits. Any Idea that relies on the villification of another in order to be justified has little merit.

 

[ProfJohn]

Life in free countries produces victims in every field. In the past four years, 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. In the same period, about 170,000 Americans have died in car accidents, and about 1.6 million have died from tobacco-related illnesses.

I had no idea that many were dying because of tobacco. Insane.

Now on to what Buckley is saying.
Arkaign did post Buckley?s conclusion, but you really need to read the whole thing to understand how Buckley comes to that conclusion.

A few points that Buckley mentions along the way.
1. Sending more troops would not be a major strain on us as a country.
2. Is Iraq worth it? He gives a very complex answer to this basically saying that if it was not for Iran then no it would not be worth it. ?If success in Iraq would bring an end to the movement of which Iraq is now the apex, the answer would clearly be yes. Has the president persuasively argued that it would do so? No. He has said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." He hasn't said why.?
3. ?If Iran did not exist, Iraq could proceed with its sectarian strife with consequences only for Iraqis. But Iran is critical in several ways. Iran is training, inflaming, transporting and supplying all Muslims within reach to join in the fighting.? A fairly honest and truthful assessment.
4. Is the U.S. role in Iraq critical? He concludes no, but not because it is not worth fighting or is not a winnable fight, but because the tactics that we are using and the enemy are using make our presence not critical.
5. Then he makes the statement Arkaign quotes about the division of Iraq along secular grounds.

It seems that Buckley agrees with why we are in Iraq and what we are trying to achieve. But he seems to think that our current methods and operating procedure is not working and therefore there is no reason for us to send more troops.

Now if the Bush plan is a real change in strategy and will result in different results then maybe it is worth a try. But if it is just more of the same, but with more soldiers then we are wasting our time. At least that is my take.

 

[ProfJohn]

After reading this op-ed click on the one titles Congress? Dilemma.
Very interesting as well.
Here is the conclusion:

What will happen?
Mr. Bush will place his 20,000 troops in Iraq athwart the objections of Pelosi et al. Give the situation six months to crystallize. If at that point Iraq appears to be stabilizing, Mr. Bush will succeed in hanging on. There is legitimate optimism on the point. Some of the chaotic fury of the insurgents seems to be dissipating. The Maliki government appears to appeal to many young Iraqis in pursuit of a stability preferable to the desperate alternative.
Whether the American troops can play a critical role in encouraging forces of moderation can't be foretold. But what is not going to happen is a situation where U.S. Army paymasters find that the checks they give out are going to bounce. Mrs. Pelosi is spoiling for a fight, but she knows she will not win with a call for divesting American soldiers of gunpowder.
A rise in Iraqi competence would hardly be surprising. At this point, they can't carry off a successful execution. It is simply unlikely that the faint of heart in Congress are going to frustrate the attempt to encourage an orderly mobilization of Iraqi civil society. Congress is unlikely to feel critical popular pressure to abandon reasonable hope.

Strange how in one OP-Ed he speaks of opposing the troop build up, and then in another talks about it will happen anyway and MIGHT actually work.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If only todays Republicans were like him and Barry Goldwater.

Barry Goldwater would be labeled a traitorous, bleeding heart librul by today's neo-con party. It's a shame. There could be 3 distinct parties in our near future.

I think it would be the best thing for America. The total overshadowing of all other parties by the Democrats and Republicans has America stuck in the mud and it's been like that for a long time.

As far as W.F. Buckley goes, I used to watch his show a bit and he struck me as weird. He always seemed to be musing to himself in his own peculiar style of out-loud ruminations. He never ceased to delight himself with what he'd say extemperaneously but I usually felt I didn't comprehend.

PS: Is Buckley a congressman? His comments in the link are actually pretty interesting.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
Ban Ki-moon?
I must admit I had to google.
Its the new Secretary General of the United Nations.
I think Buckleys point and the point of this thread is that both Democrats and Republicans would not have invaded Iraq. Only neo-cons like Bush and the neo-cons in Congress.
As a third political ideology, neo-conism sucks.

After Iraq, if we need to destroy a hostile nation ? then I say to hell with rebuilding. Leave them to their ruins as the price for spilling our blood instead of surrendering peacefully.

 

[Tab]

I was enrolled in a POLS 220 this semester but had to drop out because of work conflicts. I did manage to learn a few things. The first one being that Shia have ruled the country since the beginning of Islam and now they're out of power. Many of the Shia were members of the the Baath Party (Saddam's group) and we decided to ban/remove any members from government positions. What we didn't know(or simply didn't care) was the fact that many of the people that joined the Baath Party because that was the only way to get into the government and if you said you were a Baathist you made more money in nearly any government or goverment related position. Second, if you look at a map of Iraq you'll find out that he kurds occupy the north, the Shitte' occupy the south and the Shia occupy the west. If you divided the country by this, the Shia would be screwed because there is no oil in the west. It's also probable that if the Kurds were to have there own state they'd probably ask for indepdance and many other places would probably follow.

Note: I may have confused Shia/Shitte/Sunni or whatever...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Ban Ki-moon?
I must admit I had to google.
Its the new Secretary General of the United Nations.
I think Buckleys point and the point of this thread is that both Democrats and Republicans would not have invaded Iraq. Only neo-cons like Bush and the neo-cons in Congress.
As a third political ideology, neo-conism sucks.

After Iraq, if we need to destroy a hostile nation ? then I say to hell with rebuilding. Leave them to their ruins as the price for spilling our blood instead of surrendering peacefully.

What an awesome ideology. Of course, it helps if you limit your attacks to countries that are, you know, actually hostile.

Seriously, read up on the causes of Hitler's rise to power pre-WWII. A big part of why Germany was willing to accept his views was that various European leaders took much the same view you have after WWI and decided that Germany, as the loser, needed to be beat down further. Had Europe listened to American leaders, who suggested we be kind in victory, WWII might not have happened. So...you're ideology doesn't have what I would call a great track record.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab
I was enrolled in a POLS 220 this semester but had to drop out because of work conflicts. I did manage to learn a few things. The first one being that Shia have ruled the country since the beginning of Islam and now they're out of power. Many of the Shia were members of the the Baath Party (Saddam's group) and we decided to ban/remove any members from government positions. What we didn't know(or simply didn't care) was the fact that many of the people that joined the Baath Party because that was the only way to get into the government and if you said you were a Baathist you made more money in nearly any government or goverment related position. Second, if you look at a map of Iraq you'll find out that he kurds occupy the north, the Shitte' occupy the south and the Shia occupy the west. If you divided the country by this, the Shia would be screwed because there is no oil in the west. It's also probable that if the Kurds were to have there own state they'd probably ask for indepdance and many other places would probably follow.

Note: I may have confused Shia/Shitte/Sunni or whatever...

Hmm, probably should have payed attention in class a little more 😉 You're thinking of the Sunnis.

Still, you're point is valid. One of the FIRST rules of rebuilding a country is to not start from ground zero in terms of getting in place effective management. Rather than try to distinguish between Baath loyalists and people who joined because they had to, we just gutted administrative groups, ministries and schools of EVERYONE who joined the party. This was arguably our biggest mistake in Iraq, especially because we compounded it by replacing all the fired people with nothing.