Pat Buchanan on the War

[Bono]

What This War is All About,
by Pat Buchanan
June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance.

On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I.

On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.

Thus, it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war?

To answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions. What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for?

Since 9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that something has gone wrong.

The nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence?

What our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world against the West.

If this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy.

Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Ba'ath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans.

The destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun. Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people. Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

"There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."

This longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe, not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe, in America, anywhere in the world." The war on Iraq into which his neo-conservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the president said he wanted to avoid.

Raised to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq.

Of late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American Islamic revolution?

War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples.

This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.

We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Your toughts.

[dazzleman]

We'll know whether Buchanan is right in 50 years.

I would not discount totally what he says, but I think there is a good chance that he is not correct in his analysis.

Clearly, there has been plenty of hate toward the US in the middle east for at least 2 decades.  To say that it started with the Iraq War is ridiculous.  And since Hosni Mubarak is a large part of the problem, I'm not sure I would credit his analysis with too much.

Pat Buchanan was also against ousting Iraq from Kuwait, claiming that we only got into that war to do Israel's bidding.  But the reality there was that we could not afford to allow a hostile Iraq to take control of 40% of the world's oil reserves, which is what would have happened if we did nothing.

Buchanan has allowed his anti-Israeli (and possibly anti-Jewish) attitudes to bias his view of the middle east.  I do not share his sympathy for the Palestinians; I think they could have had a peace settlement any time they wanted it in the past 10 years, but they have chosen war and terrorism.  I really can't see a solution to that problem other than to keep them out of Israel proper.

Pat Buchanan would have also opposed doing anything about the Nazi threat.  He still believes it was a mistake for us to go to war to get rid of the Nazis, so that tends to make me question his judgment on current issues.

As I said, time will tell.  Invading Iraq was a big gamble, but doing nothing would have been also.  That is what so many of the "anti-war" people fail to understand.  And it's funny how so many of these people had no problem with the Clinton wars (such as Kosovo), in which the outcome would have had no conceivable effect on US security.

[The Duke]

Saddam, an enemy of radical Islam?  Let us exanmine the facts.

-Saddam placed the words, "Alalahu Ackbar" on the Iraqi flag.
-Saddam laced his rhetoric with Islamist sentiment.
-Saddam harbored Islamist terrorists, like the perpetrators of the '93 WTC attack and Abu Nidal.
-Saddam trained Egyptian and Saudi terrorists in hijacking airliners at Salman Pak.
-Saddam aided Ansaar-al-Islam, but waged war against every other Kurdish group.
-Saddam sent money to Abu Sayyaf.
-Saddam sent money to suicide bombers on the west bank.

Saddam=Friend of radical Islam.

[12th Doctor]

Buchanan is a wanker 80% of the time.  This is coming from the same guy, mind you, that thinks that we should pull our forces out of South Korea immediatly.  We send forces to various parts of the world to stop the slaughter of innocent people and he cries, "we should be a Republic, not an empire".  He was against the Presidents efforts from the begining because he believes that any use of force when it is not in response to a direct, imminant threat to the United States is, "Empire Building".  In short, he is the Left's best friend on the Right, when it comes to use of force.

[The Duke]

Buchanan was all for Vietnam, though.  I think it is deeper than isolationism with Buchanan.  This is a man who really doens't like Jews at all, and since Israel hated Saddam, then Saddam must be good in his eyes.

[Bono]

Well, my views now.
I rarely agree with Pat Buchanan. I don't like his populist style, nor his interventionist economic ideas. Nevertheless, I seldom agree with him, namely on small government And, *tatata* The War on Iraq. I don't think he's right about the Palestinians, I think both sides are indredibly stubborn and peace is only possible when both leaderships decide to ignore their own fundamentalists.
Yes, I agree whith Pat Buchanan when he says the US Army's function is to protect the US. Yes, I agree with Pat Buchanan when he says the US shouls befriends of liberty everywhere, but protector of the Us citizens' liberty alone. Yes, I agree with Pat Buchanan when he say all the interventionist nonsense that dominated the US politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall(btw, before that i, some of it was necessary. Not all, like arming Sadam and Bin Lade,n tough. That was not necessary.) only gained the US more enemies.  And yes, i agree with him when he says that the islamic fundamentalism the US intervention created in Iraq is nothing compared to what it was in Sadam's days.

Btw, I'd like to point out that the only terrorist camps in Iraq when Sadam was in power were in Curd territory, where Sadam had no power.

I don't hold this position just becase Buchana stands for it. Ron Paul also stood for it, and I would stand for it even if no one else in the GOP did.

[12th Doctor]

Btw, I'd like to point out that the only terrorist camps in Iraq when Sadam was in power were in Curd territory, where Sadam had no power.

Not true, Salaman Pak was located in the Sunni Triangle.  This is, of course, the famous camp with the airplane fusalage.

[The Duke]

I agree with Pat Buchanan when he say all the interventionist nonsense that dominated the US politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall(btw, before that i, some of it was necessary. Not all, like arming Sadam and Bin Lade,n tough. That was not necessary.) only gained the US more enemies.

Really?  We armed Osama?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

As it turns out, we didn't.  Don't let little things like facts get in the way of your slander of America!  How about Saddam, we armed him right?

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030327.asp

Oops.  Turns out, we sold Saddam only 0.005% of his weapons.  This hardly counts as arming Saddam.  That's like saying that a person who takes an alcohol swab to sterilize a wound is a drunkard.

Btw, I'd like to point out that the only terrorist camps in Iraq when Sadam was in power were in Curd territory, where Sadam had no power.

Its picture time!

This is the Salman Pak terrorist training camp.  Super alluded to it in his earlier post.



It was located 20 miles south-southeast of Baghdad.  Here, Egyptian and Saudi terrorists trained to hijack airliners with small knives.  As I'm sure you know, Kurd territory does not extend to Baghdad.  Here is a map of Iraq, giving you an idea of where the camp would be.  Remmebr, 20 miles S-SE of Baghdad.

[12th Doctor]

I agree with Pat Buchanan when he say all the interventionist nonsense that dominated the US politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall(btw, before that i, some of it was necessary. Not all, like arming Sadam and Bin Lade,n tough. That was not necessary.) only gained the US more enemies.

Really?  We armed Osama?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

As it turns out, we didn't.  Don't let little things like facts get in the way of your slander of America!  How about Saddam, we armed him right?

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030327.asp

Oops.  Turns out, we sold Saddam only 0.005% of his weapons.  This hardly counts as arming Saddam.  That's like saying that a person who takes an alcohol swab to sterilize a wound is a drunkard.

Btw, I'd like to point out that the only terrorist camps in Iraq when Sadam was in power were in Curd territory, where Sadam had no power.

Its picture time!

This is the Salman Pak terrorist training camp.  Super alluded to it in his earlier post.



It was located 20 miles south-southeast of Baghdad.  Here, Egyptian and Saudi terrorists trained to hijack airliners with small knives.  As I'm sure you know, Kurd territory does not extend to Baghdad.  Here is a map of Iraq, giving you an idea of where the camp would be.  Remmebr, 20 miles S-SE of Baghdad.

As you can see. John Ford has plunged strait into his new rule as Sec. of Defense.  Good work John.  

[The Duke]

I apologize to Bono if he thought my tone too harsh.  I just get tired of posting the Salman pak data over and over and over again, and still having people say, "But you have no evidence Saddam ever sponsored terrorism."  It bugs me.

[Gustaf]

Saddam was not pro or against Islamic terrorism...he just used whatever he thought conventient at the time. Itäs true that he supported terrorism, especially against Israel, but he was no fundamentalist himself. Iraq was actually one of the Islamic world's most secular countries under Saddam, and will probably recede back into the dark age of fundamentalism now that the Shias take charge...the perils of democracy I guess.

[dazzleman]

John Ford said it well.

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a major sponsor of terrorism.  Whether Hussein himself was a fundamentalist is beside the point.  There is something seriously wrong with people wanting to whitewash the crimes of this man just to make George Bush look bad.  If Bush had been president during World War II, they'd be singing the praises of Hitler and denying that he posed an aggressive threat.

Even if we did arm Iraq (which we didn't, to any appreciable degree), that doesn't mean that we should have lived with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.  We armed the Soviet Union during World War II.  True, we did "tilt" toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, as the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes distasteful choices are necessary and have negative future consequences, but that doesn't mean they were wrong at the time.

[The Duke]

Saddam was not pro or against Islamic terrorism...he just used whatever he thought conventient at the time. Itäs true that he supported terrorism, especially against Israel, but he was no fundamentalist himself. Iraq was actually one of the Islamic world's most secular countries under Saddam, and will probably recede back into the dark age of fundamentalism now that the Shias take charge...the perils of democracy I guess.

Have some faith in the Shia.  Sistani is a very moderate, very patient guy.  He's has put up with all our bungling of the occupation, after all.  I have faith in those people.

And yes, I agree that Saddam's support for Islamists was indeed more out of convenience than ideology.

[Gustaf]

Saddam was not pro or against Islamic terrorism...he just used whatever he thought conventient at the time. Itäs true that he supported terrorism, especially against Israel, but he was no fundamentalist himself. Iraq was actually one of the Islamic world's most secular countries under Saddam, and will probably recede back into the dark age of fundamentalism now that the Shias take charge...the perils of democracy I guess.

Have some faith in the Shia.  Sistani is a very moderate, very patient guy.  He's has put up with all our bungling of the occupation, after all.  I have faith in those people.

And yes, I agree that Saddam's support for Islamists was indeed more out of convenience than ideology.

Well...I'm not an optimistic person, but I sure hope you're right...I'm just seeing some bad signs, I fear that Iraq might turn into another Iran...huge anti-climax taht'd be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the Iraqi government was sponsoring any terrorist training camps in Iraq, then the US government was sponsoring the Branch Davidians and all those militia groups during the 90s. They were also based on US soil.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

 If Bush had been president during World War II, they'd be singing the praises of Hitler and denying that he posed an aggressive threat.

Oh shut up. No one is "singing the praises" of Saddam or saying that he was a good guy. Just that while he was a bad guy, he was still considered an enemy of Islamic fundamentalists. Remember that bin Laden called him an infidel in the same tape he was condemning the US.

[dazzleman]

If the Iraqi government was sponsoring any terrorist training camps in Iraq, then the US government was sponsoring the Branch Davidians and all those militia groups during the 90s. They were also based on US soil.

That's a real reach.  Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian state with the government controlling everything.  That is a false analogy.  Is there no length to which you will not to justify the behavior of a brutal totalitarian government that sponsored terrorism?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not justifying anything, it WAS a brutal totalitarian government, but the Islamic fundemantalists saw it as any enemy just as much as the US. Do you honestly think I approved of the Saddam Hussein regime?

[The Duke]

BRTD,

Did the US government subsidize the Branch Dividians?  Or did the US governemt burn their complex to the ground, instead?

Saddam's people set up the camps and operated the camps.  He sent his money to aid the efforts of Palestinian suicide bombers.  It was a drastically different situation.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the point is it wouldn't be too difficult to hide such a camp, especially in a mostly desert nation like Iraq.. I'm sure there was many Kurdish resistance training camps set up. Wasn't that camp south of Baghdad anyway? Pretty much anywhere south of Baghdad was in the no fly zone.

It's also possible he simply didn't care about the terrorists either way. If I had a nation and rebels against a nation like Brunei, Signapore, or China had training camps in it, I wouldn't do anything about it, but I wouldn't neccesarily back or fund them. All Saddam cared about was himself, supporting Islamist terrorists did not benefit him in any way, and it could've easily hurt him.

It's common logic: Iran is known to be a larger sponsor of Islamist terrorism, Iraq is Iran's enemy, why would it sponsor the same folks? Why would Russia have friendly relations with Iraq when Islamist terrorists were supporting Chechen seperatists? And why have Bush and Rumsfeld basically admitted there was no such link?