William F. Buckley has been questioning George W. Bush's conservatism for much of this year, if not longer. While I think WFB has plenty of room to question Bush's conservatism, I think the one area that he is focusing on, Iraq, shows that in the past year, conservatism may have passed Buckley by.
Conservatives, while stuanch in their opposition to Communism, have abhored foreign intaglements. I see no problem with that, and it is something Buckley has stayed consitently true to. The problem is that nothing in the Middle East can be considered just a foreign intanglement. The entire Middle East, whether Buckley or Europe care to admit it, has become a theater of war. If you just look at a map, it is very easy to decipher the importance Iraq plays in the geography of that war. Is it a tough slog? No doubt it is. But if one is to view Iran as the biggest threat to the Middle East and the West, then Iraq becomes the most important cog in dialing up the pressure on and isolating Iran. Buckley's current position would be akin to thinking that Italy or North Africa was a waste during World War II. I respect the man beyond belief, but I don't think WFB is correctly identifying Iraq's geopolitical position in the mess that is the Middle East. Without Iraq, making any inroads in the politics of the Middle East is futile. The Buckley of 1960 would have appreciated this fact much more than the Buckley of 2006.
If not for Willian F. Buckley and National Review, I wouldn't be a conservative today. Just the same, I think Buckley is wrong on this issue. I suspect that I can kiss any pipe dream I had of ever writing for National Review goodbye after this post, but I won't moderate my position on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment