The question Buckley didn’t ask

Impeccably credentialed Conservative William F. Buckley has now joined the growing number of Conservatives disenchanted with George W. Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq. To them I say welcome and it’s about time. [ As a tangent I can’t help going off on, I wonder if the rightwing hate mongers --- Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al --- will now vehemently turn on him with accusations of being unpatriotic, of offering aid and comfort to the enemy, and suggesting he be deported to Afghanistan to join his al-Qaeda loving pals, blah, blah, blah…? But that’s a different discussion. ]

In his essay on why America has, in fact, lost the war in Iraq, he argues that Bush’s invasion of that country was based on two “postulates.”

“One of these postulates,” he wrote, “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 policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.”

Buckley then goes on to argue that while in Iraq neither of these postulates has proven out, they were not necessarily flawed in the first place, which I think was his way of trying to help Bush get off the hook --- the President’s goals were noble, Buckley seems to argue, it’s just that the Iraqi people weren’t really ready.

The question Buckley so carefully danced around, the question Buckley didn’t ask is: Should George Bush have known this would likely happen?

I would argue that “yes,” he should have, for two crucial reasons:

First, even a most rudimentary understanding of the history of the Middle East suggests that for several thousand years the region’s politics have been to say the least complicated. There is even a word in English, Byzantine, that is used to describe incredibly complex and usually devious political maneuverings. The word is derived from Byzantium, which is the ancient name for the region we now call the Middle East. In other words, the Middle East is virtually synonymous with power machinations. So to assume 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” is at best idealistic naiveté, and at worst just plain ignorance.

Second, but even if naiveté (if not necessarily ignorance) on the part of the President could be forgiven, the fact is he had plenty of opportunity to understand that what has unfolded in Iraq was indeed a possible and perhaps even likely outcome. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that he is now Gen. Shinseki (Ret.). Former Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that he is the “former” Secretary of State. The CIA tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the CIA is now being purged of those who do not reflect the President’s priorities. [ Another tangent I can’t help going off on… Perhaps those in the CIA being “purged” should count their blessings that they are being “purged” by being sent off to early retirement, as there are other, more extreme forms of being “purged” that might have been considered. ]

I’m very much aware that Bush supporters will dismiss me as a second-guessing Monday morning quarterback (or worse). Be that as it may, the reality is the President had knowledgeable sources within his administration that could have offered him a more realistic assessment of the outcome of his actions. He chose not to listen to them, and the result of his --- what? The word “arrogance” comes to mind --- is costing us dearly in lives and money and goodwill. Indeed, he still seems not to be listening…