http://www.intellectualconservative....y-vs-limbaugh/
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.
Wonderful blog post 
, this can only strengthen the movement 
. Anyone have any question's comments?