-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
When William F. Buckley Jr. first started expressing doubts about the Iraq war, my colleagues at the American Conservative, where I then worked, joked that the National Review founder was going to find himself denounced as an “unpatriotic conservative.” Well, that didn’t happen but Richard Brookhiser seems to think Buckley’s Iraq stance made him a scornful, indifferent conservative. As Austin Bramwell puts it in a generally favorable review of Brookhiser’s Right Time, Right Place (alongside Christopher Buckley’s Losing Mum and Pup):
By the end, however, he is puzzling over WFB’s late ambivalence about the Iraq War. Charitably enough, Brookhiser rejects first racism (WFB had no faith in dark-skinned peoples), then venality (WFB sought money or praise) and finally callousness (WFB had no sympathy for the oppressed) as the reason. Finally, he concludes that WFB had simply grown weary. WFB had lost his stomach for the good fight.
It seems to me that Buckley’s concerns about the Iraq war were pretty straightforward: he was shocked by the failure to locate the promised weapons of mass destruction and came to doubt that invading and occupying Iraq was the best way to protect America after 9/11. “With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn’t the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago,” said Buckley in 2004. “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.” And Buckley was said to have asked Norman Podhoretz, “Aren’t you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?”
Say what you will of these objections — I know plenty of conservatives who still endorse more robust claims for the WMD and Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda than the Bush administration was willing to — but these are precisely the same reasons a majority of the American people turned against the Iraq war. However horrible Saddam was and the insurgent terrorist groups inside Iraq are, many Americans no longer believed our invasion of Iraq had been essential to our security. And they also began to wonder about the commander-in-chief who had sky-high approval ratings when he launched the war. As former National Review reporter Byron York put it, “The reason that Saddam supposedly posed a threat to us always came back to WMD, and the fact is that the dire scenarios sketched by the Bush administration in the run-up to the war did not turn out to be accurate.”
Buckley was influenced both by a Cold War conservatism that emphasized American ideals and an older conservatism that understood the rootedness of normal countries in history and place. Believers in the latter have sometimes been guilty of indifference in the face of tyranny. Believers in the former without any regard for the older conservatism’s sobriety tend to be guilty of something else: liberalism.
For further reading: Neal Freeman’s cover story on NR and Iraq; Wlady’s review of Buckley and Brookhiser; and Brookhiser’s kind mention of “The Continuing Crisis.”
Aaron| 6.29.09 @ 4:41PM
My belief has been from the beginning that the Iraq war was about taking the fight against terrorism to them on our terms. Iraq is/was a battle ground, Saddam was a huge supplier of funds, materials and ideology and the Iraqi military was no contest for us. Its shameful that we used the excuse of WMDs and come to pass that intel was wrong... wooopsie! The British, French, Germans, Aussies, Canadians and Israelis all believed the same intel.
The fact remains that we have pushed back terrorism, funds are depleted, resources drained/removed, lines of communication severed and their command structures are fractured. We have two fledgling democracies on either side of Iran, a country that for years has steadily been on the march toward revolution itself.
The day will come when radical islam and its terrorists are gone and we will have the Iraq invasion and President G. W. Bush to thank for it.
William R| 6.29.09 @ 5:45PM
Iraq destroyed conservatism. It has been a disaster from start to finish. The late William Odom senior military and intelligence official in the Reagan administration called it the biggest strategic disaster in history. 4 star General Anthony Zinni called it a disaster. And as former Majority Leader in the House Dick Armey said, "Cheney flat out lied to him about WMDs and Osama and Iraq. " The NeoCons hijacked the Republican party and drove it into a ditch. National Review is unreadable.
Brian B| 6.29.09 @ 6:06PM
Only conservatives could spend their days arguing over a war they won.
The stupid party indeed.
Phillips| 6.29.09 @ 6:52PM
Jim, you better be careful. The pro-war jihadist here may hound you out of your own magazine.
Aaron, step away from the red Kool-Aid. You've clearly had enough. Saddam did not supply "ideology" for the terrorists, at least not terrorists of the al-Qaida variety. Saddam was a secularist Ba'athist and a-Q had little use for him. But why Iraq to "take it to them?" Why not Syria? Why not Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not all of them? Because Iraq was easy pickins? Such language of the playground, "We're going to take it to them," is morally reprobate. You can't start a war and get people killed so we can "take it to them." You have to have a just causis belli. Are you the slightest bit familiar with Christian Just War Doctrine? Do you care?
Phillips| 6.29.09 @ 7:07PM
I find Brookhiser absolutely insufferable. He has really swallowed the Jaffaite neocon red Kool-Aid. He is a perfect example of the idea that ideology makes smart people foolish. His criticism of Buckley, beyond the personal, is essentially that he had become insufficiently committed to the dogma. Buckley wasn’t sufficiently concerned about the poor oppressed Iraqis yearning to be freed by the Jacobin States of America and no longer had the stomach for the fight. Blah, blah, blah. Could a member of the Comintern or a Randian have said it any better? Brookhiser was ready to purge the purger. I can't figure out if he really believes that stuff, or if he is just knowingly enforcing dogma for the plebes.
Popblogger | 6.29.09 @ 7:15PM
I'm still trying to figure out how Dick Cheney was able to convince the intelligence agencies here and in Germany, France, and the UK (not to mention Colin Powell) that Iraq was in possession of WMD.
Aaron| 6.29.09 @ 7:53PM
Phillips- We didn't start the war, they did and how soon people forget. Saddam contributed to the ideology of extremism in the same way that Ahmadinejad does. Why Iraq? You answered your own question.
Sean| 6.29.09 @ 8:27PM
The Iraq war was a big waste in American lives and treasure. Most of the extremists were coming from Saudi Arabia. We lost more lives in Iraq that any terrorist could hope to inflict on us if we made common sense approaches at home. These approaches such as securing our border we still don't undertake.
R. Dittmar| 6.29.09 @ 8:57PM
I’d argue that the flap over WMD’s in Iraq has very little to do with the creation of a fiasco. Americans are pretty shrewd and I don’t believe that the absence of weapons in itself soured them on the Iraq war. They did re-elect Bush in 2004 after all. They would have been more than willing to give a pass on the shaky intelligence had it not become clear that all of the PC elites in the Bush administration were a thousand times more worried about some random Muslim somewhere in the world taking offence rather than an American soldier losing his life.
WMD’s or no, nothing killed conservatism as much as the fact that our elected representatives are clearly far more concerned about the opinions of foreigners than they are about their own voters.
Phillips| 6.29.09 @ 9:00PM
"We didn't start the war, they did"
Aaron, who is "they?" All Muslims? Any ol' Muslim will do? We were attacked on 9/11 by stateless terrorists. To attack a nation state that wasn't involved in retaliation is barbaric.
kent| 6.29.09 @ 11:16PM
Phillips - you say
"We were attacked on 9/11 by stateless terrorists. To attack a nation state that wasn't involved in retaliation is barbaric."
There are no stateless terrorists capable of the 9-11 act. Those who committed the acts were backed by state sponsors. Where do you think they trained, who gave them intelligence support, who gave them travel and visa support? They clearly had state backing. And the states who backed them did so to commit a direct act of war without the inconvenience of having to take responsibility. It is easier that way. Especially when uninformed people are willing to say that acts of war were perpetrated by stateless terrorists. I guess there is nothing we can do in that case.
youth programs| 6.30.09 @ 3:05AM
Thanks for posting such kind of usefull information.Keep Posted in future as well.Thank you! Please come visit my site youth services when you got time.
Jeremiah Whitmoore | 6.30.09 @ 4:10AM
Aaron Writes:
" My belief has been from the beginning that the Iraq war was about taking the fight against terrorism to them on our terms."
So we take a war against a tactic to a nation that wasn't engaging in that tactic?
Iraq is/was a battle ground, Saddam was a huge supplier of funds, materials and ideology and the Iraqi military was no contest for us.
Inherent contradiction?
Its shameful that we used the excuse of WMDs and come to pass that intel was wrong... wooopsie!
Yeah big deal, kinda like when the bakery spelled my daughters name wrong on her birthday cake.
The British, French, Germans, Aussies, Canadians and Israelis all believed the same intel.
Actually not true about them believing our fake intelligence that Cheney and Chalabi pretty much fabricated. And besides I don't remember France, Germany or Israel contributing too many combat troops to our effort. Don't forget to give credit to the Norwegian and Icelandic forces who helped liberate Iraq.
The fact remains that we have pushed back terrorism, funds are depleted, resources drained/removed, lines of communication severed and their command structures are fractured.
Lines of communication severed?Possibly. But at least now I can take comfort in knowing that I can be classified at as an enemy combatant at the government's whim and put on a no-fly list for no reason.
We have two fledgling democracies on either side of Iran, a country that for years has steadily been on the march toward revolution itself.
Fledgling democracies? March toward revolution? Maybe one day, God willing, Iraq will invade us and show us true democracy.
The day will come when radical islam and its terrorists are gone and we will have the Iraq invasion and President G. W. Bush to thank for it.
But for now, Just thank George W. Bush for the great economy, strengthening our constitution, and helping the great conservative John McCain capturing the presidency in our recent election.
Michael Dooley| 6.30.09 @ 6:51AM
Mr. Whitmoore: We shouldn't blame Bush for McCain's defeat. Whatev3r the White House did for him, McCain hexed his election all by himself.
Michael Dooley| 6.30.09 @ 7:34AM
The American people didn't turn against the war because we couldn't find any WMD's. We telegraphed to Iraq what we were about to do weeks before the invasion. Iraq certainly had enough time to hide their MWD's in Syria.
Be that as it may, the American people turned against the war when their sons and daughters were being picked off one here one there by snipers and IUD's while their government seemed unwillingness to do what took to grasp victory. (America has a long history of winning wars and losing during the peace.) When any administration's goal is no longer achieving victory, America's wives, husbands, mothers and fathers are not willing to lose their love ones to defeat. No one wants their love one to be the last casualty as America walks away from the conflict. If their government no longer has victory as its goal, if the deployment of our forces is for anything less than victory, Americans will not be willing to the pointless sacrifices that will occur.
Phillips| 6.30.09 @ 8:19AM
"We telegraphed to Iraq what we were about to do weeks before the invasion. Iraq certainly had enough time to hide their MWD's in Syria."
You mean instead of using them to repel our invasion? That is a rather unique strategy in the history of warfare.
"their government seemed unwillingness to do what took to grasp victory. "
So the people turned against the war because it wasn't prosecuted ruthlessly enough? You keep on believing that buddy.
"and show us true democracy."
I find it rather amusing that we lecture Iran about democracy but at least Iran had MORE THAN TWO candidates on the ballot. And in Iraq's first election there were multiple parties. What a scandal. They clearly haven't learned American style "democracy." Or else they would have only allowed two, Establishment Party A and Establishment Party B.
Steven| 6.30.09 @ 11:55AM
Philips -
We were at war with Iraq, due to their failure to abide by their armistice agreement from 1991.
We were patrolling the north and south of Iraq by air. This is casus belli.
The post-1991 sanctions on Iraq were crumbling. The Russians, Europeans, and Chinese were actively working to undermine them and end them. They would have lasted no more than 1 year longer, probably less.
The same NGOs who worked against US interests in Iraq after the US invaded were the same ones who were publishing Baath-supplied propaganda against the sanctions in order to undermine them. These NGOs were actively working with Iraq to oppose US policy prior to the invasion in 2003.
Neither y0u nor any opponent of the Iraq war has yet dealt with these realities. Saddam was outlasting the US' resolve due to the fecklessness of Colin Powell and the "realists" who left him in place in 1991. If the invasion did not take place in 2003, we would now be dealing with an Iraq that had restarted its WMD programs. Added to having to deal with Iran and its current WMD program, I fail to see how invading Iraq made us less safe.
Unless and until someone who opposed the Iraq War (either before or after) deals with the facts on the ground as they were in 2003, it is irrelevant what you think. History will not forget the facts and will judge the war as correct.
Phillips| 6.30.09 @ 1:47PM
"We were at war with Iraq, due to their failure to abide by their armistice agreement from 1991.
We were patrolling the north and south of Iraq by air. This is casus belli."
Steven, we shouldn't have gone to war in the First Gulf War. It was not our fight as many sensible non-interventionist conservatives pointed out at the time. And we shouldn't have been patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones enforcing UN mandates. So conservatives support the UN now? It was our permanent presence in Saudi enforcing the no-fly zones that so stuck in Osama's craw.
“If the invasion did not take place in 2003, we would now be dealing with an Iraq that had restarted its WMD programs.”
That is not even pre-emptive war. That is at best preventative war. We go to war and kill people because they might develop weapons which they then might use. War just to be on the safe side. Preventative war is grossly un-Christian. Listen to yourself.
You do realize we are talking about real lives here. Real moms. Real dads. Real children. These are not pieces on your Risk board.
Michael Dooley| 6.30.09 @ 2:55PM
Phillips: If you reread my post, you will understand that my point was that the American people never have been willing to lose their loved ones for no clear purpose. The administration became confused in direction and purpose--and the American people could see it. Our soldiers were being picked off and it seemed that the administration was setting up our troops for target practice for the insurgents. The hell with that.
As you already know, at least half of the Christians in the world do not subscribe to the Catholic Church’s “just war” tradition. I would lose no sleep because I began to wage war instead of waiting for an aggressor’s act of war to kill American citizens. I will not standby and let my countrymen die because I was admiring the fineness of my moral weave.
“You do realize we are talking about real lives here. Real moms. Real dads. Real children. These are not pieces on your Risk board.”
For some reason, some people (particularly liberals) think they are scoring points by stating the obvious. Real people, real flesh and blood get ripped apart in war—that’s the nature of war. Speaking as if the other side is blissfully unaware of the savagery of war is just plain self-indulgent.
Phillips| 6.30.09 @ 5:45PM
"For some reason, some people (particularly liberals) think they are scoring points by stating the obvious. Real people, real flesh and blood get ripped apart in war—that’s the nature of war. Speaking as if the other side is blissfully unaware of the savagery of war is just plain self-indulgent."
Michael, have you ever read some pro-war threads here? The cavalier, nonchalant attitude toward war of many of the commenters is appalling. If they understand the true nature of war you would never know it.