February 27, 2006
Iraq Is Not Lost
By Lieutenant
Colonel John M. Kanaley
During Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt, a Muslim writer described
his fascination and admiration for the French method of jurisprudence
even during hostilities. According to historian Bernard Lewis,
the writer compared French due process to the extremist Muslims
who pretended to be warriors in a holy war but killed people and
destroyed human beings for no other reason than to gratify their
animal passions. This terrorist tactic is not new to this current
war; yet, it is having an adverse effect on how some people define
success. Too many have fallen under the influential barrage of
the information campaign waged by the terrorists and by those
who believe the time has come to leave the Middle-East theater,
regardless of the outcome for Iraq.
The latest
victim of negative news comes from a most unexpected source-the
preeminent conservative thinker of the past half century: William
F. Buckley. He once eloquently debated Ronald Reagan during the
Carter years on the Panama Canal issue, against the wave of conservative
thought at that time. However, he now has
presented his perception of failure on the Iraq war in less convincing
terms.
The sources
contributing to his position are quite questionable. He has apparently
relied upon the New York Times to provide a ‘man
on the street’ quote from an Iraqi businessman. He continued
by mentioning the Iranian president’s usual “blame
everything on the Zionists” reference. Buckley’s last
source came from an inconclusive thought provided by an “anonymous”
American soldier.
To enhance
his belief in his essay, “It Didn’t Work”, Mr.
Buckley described how the businessman blames Iraq’s problems
on America. It is puzzling to rely on this quote, since the man
is described as being a member of a Sunni stronghold, so it is
not difficult to surmise where his loyalties originate. This same
interviewing technique would have produced the same result from
Berlin in 1945.
The anonymous
soldier that Buckley referred to apparently has come to the realization
that he is now aware of why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep
the Sunnis and the Shiites from each other’s throats. (Apparently,
the news organizations failed to report that Hussein must have
finished a close second for the Nobel Peace Prize for his protection
of the Shiites). Rather than playing the referee in Baghdad, evidence
shows that the butcher was actually leading the Sunni charge against
the Shiite throats in a one-way contest of torture and suppression.
It is surprising
that such a learned man as Buckley has fallen victim to the misinformation
side of this conflict. He attempts to back up his interpretation
of this war being a failure by posing some postulates. The first
one is that the Iraqi people would put aside their divisions and
establish a political environment that guarantees religious freedom.
If he assumes that the Iraqis failed in this pursuit, he should
review the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution
which expressly delineates that particular freedom.
Mr. Buckley’s
second postulate assumes that Americans would succeed in training
Iraqi soldiers to handle insurgents bent on violence. He followed
this by saying that this did not happen. His conclusion is absolutely
false. What war has he been watching? The training program is
currently underway and has succeeded to the extent that the Iraqis
are taking on missions and commanding terrain previously under
the control of the coalition.
Mr. Buckley
went on to ask what we should do when we see that the postulates
do not prevail. Unfortunately, he has come to false conclusions
because he has negated the postulates without looking at the data,
relying instead upon the massive amount of negative reporting,
and apparently basing his ultimate conclusion on three unreliable
sources in his essay. Eventually, his suggestion is to abandon
the postulates.
Why abandon
success just because the enemy and the anti-war crowd say it has
failed? Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to place the events
in Iraq in context. From the signing of the American Declaration
of Independence, it took nearly 40 years, a constitutional convention,
and four presidents to finally achieve a sense of security in
the United States. In the country’s infancy, it was never
completely secure with the English, French, and Spanish waiting
for the right opportunity to recover all they had lost at the
expense of the American quest for freedom and sovereignty.
As the third
anniversary of the Iraqi invasion approaches, the success in that
country is undeniable. One of world’s bloodiest tyrants
has been deposed and the first elections were held less than 22
months later. Nine months afterward, a constitution had been formed
and overwhelmingly approved by a public referendum. To cap off
the electoral success of 2005, a permanent government was voted
upon. A momentous achievement to note was that the voters for
the new Council of Representatives included a significant number
of Sunnis who had boycotted the first election.
In one of
his closing comments, Mr. Buckley assumes that eventually President
Bush and the military leaders will acknowledge a tactical setback
and instead insist on the survival of strategic policies. He has
the tactical and strategic definitions confused. The war has been
an overwhelming tactical success. Even the enemy has conceded
this, which is why the terrorists have relied upon the sensational
news of blowing up innocent civilians. Since they are unable to
confront coalition forces or the Iraqi Army, they have targeted
the weakest link, yet survive upon the benefits that the mainstream
media and the left have provided. Those unwilling to continue
the success in Iraq look upon the negative news and are adamant
that this must be leading to a civil war, thus, indicating defeat
in the overall mission. On the contrary, the President and top
military leaders have maintained a consistent vision for success
in the strategic arena which requires a firm commitment to ensure
a free and democratic Iraq.
It is difficult
to witness somebody of Buckley’s stature acknowledging defeat
in the last sentence of his essay. Has he fallen for the boisterous
negativity of the anti-war crowd? Mr. Buckley, say it isn’t
so. The title of your piece is wrong. The strategic mission in
Iraq has worked and it continues to do so.
John
M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.
He serves in Baghdad, Iraq.
©
2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved
