William Buckley: The American mission in Iraq has failed. We must acknowledge defeat.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...00602241451.asp

[kaydee457 13]

His opinion is always suspect. Besides, he talks "funny"......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Time will tell what the effects of the Iraq war will be. Sadly western imperialist intervention has historically created more problems than it solved.

One need only look at the US actions in Haiti, Iran and Korea - and ask the question what stability did we bring to those countries?

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Most Indians I've met of my grandparent's generation liked the British. In hindsight, that is

It would be wrong to say the British did not contribute to India. They did. But they still suck, LOL. Go figure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Most Indians I've met of my grandparent's generation liked the British. In hindsight, that is

It would be wrong to say the British did not contribute to India. They did. But they still suck, LOL. Go figure.

Not saying they didn't contribute, but that in many respects their involvement was counter productive. Most of Africa was plundered by British and French imperialism, today most African countries are still suffering as a result - wars, famines, disease, genocide. Certainly not a pretty picture.

Its also fair to say that we're still exploiting those countries, many of whom are saddled with massive debts that they can only repay by further impoverishing their people.

Also is it fair to ask the question, would Iran be such a hotbed of anti-western hatred if the US hadn't kicked out the Shah, and bankrolled Saddam Hussein to go to war with them?

Its a reasonable assumption that the situation we are faced with today with regards to islamic fundamentalist terrorism stems directly from the actions of previous administrations towards the 3rd world.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[almaty 19]

buckly is a thinking man's conservative..that is a strong statement from him..

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Its a reasonable assumption that the situation we are faced with today with regards to islamic fundamentalist terrorism stems directly from the actions of previous administrations towards the 3rd world.

I'm not so sure.

Islamic fundamentalists terrorized parts of the world well before the US even existed. Pre-Islamic Persia, for example. And later, the entire Indian subcontinent. There are books written by Muslim rulers of central asian territories speaking of their horror at learning how South Asia is overrun by non-believers and tales of their exploits (looting, murder, etc.) from their military excursions into infidel territory. Reference: Babar Nama.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That said, I don't think we can assume failure in Iraq. The administration took us into a war that was illegal and unethical for reasons that were totally separate to protecting US national security. However, they now owe a debt to that country to rebuild its infrastructure and protect Iraq's national security. I don't think its reasonable to pull out of there without satisfying those obligations.

Its a reasonable assumption that the situation we are faced with today with regards to islamic fundamentalist terrorism stems directly from the actions of previous administrations towards the 3rd world.

I'm not so sure.

Islamic fundamentalists terrorized parts of the world well before the US even existed. Pre-Islamic Persia, for example. And later, the entire Indian subcontinent. There are books written by Muslim rulers of central asian territories speaking of their horror at learning how South Asia is overrun by non-believers and tales of their exploits (looting, murder, etc.) from their military excursions into infidel territory. Reference: Babar Nama.

Quite. But as I said, would Iran be the way it is if the US hadn't gotten involved there?

Put it another way - would the UK have gone through a half century of catholic terrorism at the hands of the IRA, if they hadn't have gone into Northern Ireland?

Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[desert_fox 32]

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Most Indians I've met of my grandparent's generation liked the British. In hindsight, that is

It would be wrong to say the British did not contribute to India. They did. But they still suck, LOL. Go figure.

Not saying they didn't contribute, but that in many respects their involvement was counter productive. Most of Africa was plundered by British and French imperialism, today most African countries are still suffering as a result - wars, famines, disease, genocide. Certainly not a pretty picture.

Its also fair to say that we're still exploiting those countries, many of whom are saddled with massive debts that they can only repay by further impoverishing their people.

Also is it fair to ask the question, would Iran be such a hotbed of anti-western hatred if the US hadn't kicked out the Shah, and bankrolled Saddam Hussein to go to war with them?

Its a reasonable assumption that the situation we are faced with today with regards to islamic fundamentalist terrorism stems directly from the actions of previous administrations towards the 3rd world.

US kicked out the Shah?? news to me.

The problems in Africa have nothing to do with who colonized them. They are from tribal divisions that have existed for centuries, and have only been waiting for the colonizers to leave so that tribal warfare could break out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

US kicked out the Shah?? news to me.

I stand corrected

The question still stands though - would islamic militant terrorism be as prevalent today if we hadn't interfered with Iran by removing the prime minister, and supported a pseudo-stalinist dictator (saddam hussein), supplying him with weapons (of mass destruction) and financial aid, which he used (with the US blessing) in a war that killed over 1 million people?

As to Africa - what about the Rwandan genocide? - that certainly was primarily based in tribal divisions, but those existing divisions were exacerbated by Belgian Imperialism. Essentially they created a class society that favoured the Tutsis (elavating them to positions of power and authority) at the expense of the Hutus.

Again - many 3rd world countries (esp Africa) are saddled with massive debts that can only be repaid by further impoverishing the people. How can you develop an economy, build a decent infrastructure if you are forever paying off the interest on loans you cannot afford to pay back. Lets not forget that much of the money loaned to African nations was loaned to dictators who used it to finance wars against their own people.

At best the west has to assume some complicity in this - as I said I don't think the problems of the world exist in a vacuum. Like it or not we do bear at least some responsibility for them. We may not pull the trigger but often we pay the guy that does...

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[desert_fox 32]

US kicked out the Shah?? news to me.

I stand corrected

The question still stands though - would islamic militant terrorism be as prevalent today if we hadn't interfered with Iran by removing the prime minister, and supported a pseudo-stalinist dictator (saddam hussein), supplying him with weapons (of mass destruction) and financial aid, which he used (with the US blessing) in a war that killed over 1 million people?

As to Africa - what about the Rwandan genocide? - that certainly was primarily based in tribal divisions, but those existing divisions were exacerbated by Belgian Imperialism. Essentially they created a class society that favoured the Tutsis (elavating them to positions of power and authority) at the expense of the Hutus.

Again - many 3rd world countries (esp Africa) are saddled with massive debts that can only be repaid by further impoverishing the people. How can you develop an economy, build a decent infrastructure if you are forever paying off the interest on loans you cannot afford to pay back. Lets not forget that much of the money loaned to African nations was loaned to dictators who used it to finance wars against their own people.

At best the west has to assume some complicity in this - as I said I don't think the problems of the world exist in a vacuum. Like it or not we do bear at least some responsibility for them. We may not pull the trigger but often we pay the guy that does...

Im sure that you are right in many of these aspects.

I look at the countries as victims of independence. They had no idea on how to run a democracy, and werent really interested in it, as they still had to go thru the era of dictators, corruption, and supression as most democracies have done. Look at Nigeria....an oil exporter, filty rich, and still the people have almost nothing. Who is getting the money?? British?/

[kaydee457 13]

Also is it fair to ask the question, would Iran be such a hotbed of anti-western hatred if the US hadn't kicked out the Shah, and bankrolled Saddam Hussein to go to war with them?

Me thinks you need to polish your recollection of history........DUDE

[I'm Gone 60]

What I'm afraid of is we will cut our losses in Iraq, which will free up troops and then do something stupid with Iran.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

His opinion is always suspect. Besides, he talks "funny"......

Well, the reality of it is that you find anything suspect that doesn't rhyme with Bush's soundbites.

[kaydee457 13]

Time will tell what the effects of the Iraq war will be. Sadly western imperialist intervention has historically created more problems than it solved.

One need only look at the US actions in Haiti, Iran and Korea - and ask the question what stability did we bring to those countries?

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Really? Care to cite some instances? Communism? You seriously need to gain some perspective, DUD, er, DUDE.

The freedom you enjoy up-chucking this drivel that you put forth in these forums was paid for by those that...oh well what's the use?

It's fashionable to be indignant and pompous concerning issues that clearly involve burdens borne by others allowing you to continue espousing this uninformed nonsense.

Viva democracy and freedom!

Edited February 26, 2006 by kaydee457