WIlliam F. Buckley declares opposition to war
In the National Review yesterday, one of the prime movers of the post-Goldwater conservative movement called the Iraq venture a failure. In fact, he concedes that the policy of sending such a small force in to depose a nation's government and then secure the entire nation was a mistake. And this comes just after a new wave of right-wing groups have started airing paid ads claiming that this is a lie propagated by the 'liberal media.'
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
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.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
Perhaps it's just a signal that prominent conservatives are ready to throw this entire administration to the wolves in hopes of maintaining Republican dominance of the government. The UAE port sales demonstrated a distinct shift away from lockstep party discipline in an election year when the increasing public opposition to the war and the administration could spell big trouble for GOP incumbents. The vigor with which candidates try to distance themselves from the Bushies is directly proportional to the vigor with which Democratic condidates should highlight their support for White House policies.
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
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.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
Perhaps it's just a signal that prominent conservatives are ready to throw this entire administration to the wolves in hopes of maintaining Republican dominance of the government. The UAE port sales demonstrated a distinct shift away from lockstep party discipline in an election year when the increasing public opposition to the war and the administration could spell big trouble for GOP incumbents. The vigor with which candidates try to distance themselves from the Bushies is directly proportional to the vigor with which Democratic condidates should highlight their support for White House policies.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 3:31 PM
<< Home