Buried in Tuesday's New York Times article discussing William F. Buckley's retirement from overseeing National Review was his admission that going to war in Iraq may not have been such a good idea.

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Buckley told the Times. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

Buckley joins George Will and Tucker Carlson as major conservatives who have expressed second thoughts about the war in Iraq. Numerous intellectual figures on the Right, of course, have opposed the war from the outset. These include Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Bob Novak, and Donald Devine.

Buckley's impulse to rethink rather than retrench on Iraq is further proof that his reputation as an intellectual heavyweight is well deserved.

“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”

Mr. Buckley confuses issues here. The first concerns the threat posed by Hussein and the second concerns the cost of occupation and reconstruction. The two are unrelated. What if Hussein was “the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one”? Would Mr. Buckley still have opposed the war if he knew then what he knows now about “what kind of situation we would be in”?

This kind of confusion suggests that Mr. Buckley is in search of political cover for an increasingly unpopular reconstruction effort.

Indeed, Brad, the “threat posed by Hussein” and the “cost of occupation and reconstruction” are two distinct states-of-affairs. The first is the good aimed for by the war, and the second the foreseeable but unwanted bad consequences. Though these are distinct issues, both are relevant to the larger question of whether the war was worthwhile. So Buckley is not “confusing issues” in discussing them together.

Rather, in prudential reasoning we are often required to juggle several issues in an attempt to reach the best possible good in our given, complex situations. C’est la vie! (For example, I want to smoke cigarettes because they are delicious and claming and help me think sharply, but they will also make me unhealthy. Am I “confusing issues” by not smoking? No, I am being prudent.)

Now if Saddam were really a very serious and immanent “extraterritorial menace,” then perhaps it would have been prudential to invade and occupy Iraq (if this were necessary to halt his attacks). Buckley is merely saying that the bad consequence (our current mess in Iraq) outweighs the good achieved by ‘preempting’ a non-existent threat.

Imagine the mess we would be in if we followed principle in attacking every foreign threat – no matter how piddly the threat and no matter how grave the consequences of war.

Evidently, you are the type who retrenches rather than rethinks when something you believe is publicly disproven.

I agree that the level of threat and the cost of reconstruction are both relevant factors in judging whether the Iraq war is 'worthwhile'. That, however, does not untangle Mr. Buckley's statement.

He could argue that 'the benefit of hindsight' has revealed the cause for war to be unfounded. Or he could argue that the cause for war, even if founded, is not worth the current cost. He does neither. Rather, Mr. Buckley uses hindsight to separately criticize both cause and cost without relating one to the other.

Obviously if the cause is unfounded, then any cost is too high – "the bad consequence outweighs the good achieved by 'preempting' a non-existent threat." This trivial insight cannot be Mr. Buckley's intent. Is he now against the war because the cause has turned out to be unfounded? Or is he against the war because the cost has turned out to be greater than the stated cause?

'To retrench' – to defend a position against unreasonable criticism. Guilty as charged.

Brad asks: "Is [Buckley] now against the war because the cause has turned out to be unfounded? Or is he against the war because the cost has turned out to be greater than the stated cause?" Why make him choose? Since he mentions both reasons, for him it is clearly both, or a combination of the two. (If I say I am going to the store because I want to buy some cigarettes AND because I want to take a walk, I am not "confusing the issue" by having two reasons.)

The real question is, given that last year's conservative hawks have TWO very good reasons to now rethink their massive governmental project, the war, why aren't more doing so? It's never too late to be born again as a dove.

Separately, each may be a legitimate reason to oppose the war. Together, they are somewhat confusing.

What can we glean from Mr. Buckley's statement? Until recently, he supported the war (at least he did not oppose it). The reason for that support was the 'assumption' that Hussein posed an extra-territorial threat (implied by the context of the next sentence). And in retrospect, had he known the cost of occupation, he would have opposed the war.

In other words, the veracity of the cause is not related to his newfound opposition. For had the cause been founded, he would remain opposed because of the cost. What, then, is the point of mentioning them in conjunction? What does the the former have to do with the latter?

In answer to 'the real question'. Those of us who thought the stated cause justified war, the epistemic fault of the intelligence agencies is only useful in retrospect, which is to say, not at all. Given the available evidence, it was the correct response. And now that the U.S. is there, the mission must be completed.

Interesting argument. I feel like I have met you two somewhere or heard such back and forths before? ;)

I think Buckley's comments about his growing doubts about the war, his second thoughts as it were, are too succintly given and vague. He is being unclear, I don't think he has actually yet written any essays or columns specifically detailing his problems with the war, as, say George Will has done. Buckley needs to amplify.

Therefore, I can conveniently agree with both Brad and Mols comments above.

That is a cop-out, Brian. I grant that Buckley is vague, but it is just silly to say that he is "confused" merely because he mentions two reasons, which are related in a basically obvious way.

Besides, _Brad_ wants to accuse Buckley of looking for political cover?! What is his "epistemic fault of the intelligence agencies" except finding political cover by finding someone to blame? All those people who gave away their minds to propoganda for a year now want to pawn off the responsibility for believing false things. Many people didn't believe the administration's spin on the evidence that Saddam was an immanent threat to homeland security -- which evidence was never shown to Congress or the public, as it should have been. It turns out those skeptics were right to resist the new, UnAmerican and unChristian "preemption doctrine." Brad is refusing to take responisiblity for believing that spin. By the looks of it, those who spun might take responsibility for it come November.

I just think that you are making WFB's claim much more clear than it is strictly in the way it is written above. You may be right in your interpretation of what WFB says, I think you are definitely correct in your own critique of the war based on extrapolating beyond what WFB says, but I think Brad is right that the statement as given by WFB is a bit confusing and has logical problems along the line Brad indicates.

WFB mentions two reasons for critiquing the war, certainly, and that isn't the confusion. The confusion is what exactly the content or referent is to the phrase "if I knew then what I know now" which in that second sentence refers it seems to the postwar costs/casualties. But the first sentence speaks of "minute hindsight" as regards the threat of Saddam. That is the problem, WFB seems (in your reading) to be thus including the first claim about the threat of Saddam in with the second claim about the reconstruction as things that "if I knew then" would have made him an opponent . . . but he doesn't make this explicit or clear. Brad is exploiting that confusion. But you are right I did cop-out, but I just can't resist getting involved in some debate you two are having.

Besides the Real is the Rational . . . (just kidding).

"All those people who gave away their minds to propoganda for a year now want to pawn off the responsibility for believing false things. Many people didn't believe the administration's spin on the evidence that Saddam was an immanent threat to homeland security - which evidence was never shown to Congress or the public, as it should have been. It turns out those skeptics were right to resist the new, UnAmerican and unChristian 'preemption doctrine.'"

Sounds like the basis for a documentary. Do you have a distributor?

Yes, I do have a distributor. It's called "Be Glad Brad: A Case Study in Wishful Thinking." It is about the pre-war hype from neocon pundits and the administration. This hype created the false impression in many Americans' minds that the evidence of an immediate threat to the 'homeland' was obvious (but that it was too dangerous to show Congress the evidence), that Iraq's oil would cover America's costs, that we wouldn't have to stick around for years in an occupation, and that Iraqis would greet us with happy faces, ready to be remade in our image.

See, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, like some other documentary makers. I just believe wishful thinking, bandwagon enthusiasm, vague consideration of consequences, and spin are common in politics.

That's it for me. Later.