THE MOUNTING PROTESTS
By William F. Buckley Jr.Fri Jun 17, 8:05 PM ET The critic persuasively argues that no commitment by the United States can be interpreted as extending beyond a reasonable allocation of the nation's resources. We could not, in March 2003, when the war began, be expected to fix a figure of soldiers dead and billions spent, after which geopolitical assumptions would be revised.
"As major military operations are measured," we are reminded, "our losses in Iraq are statistically exiguous, but they are nonetheless inordinate. The disposition to bear the cost and pain of human losses is necessarily measured by coordinate purposes and achievements. Our desire that the new Iraq, uninterrupted by insurgency, should proceed as a free and independent state is less than a commitment to which we are prepared to make sacrifices without measure."
The critic concludes: "The moment comes in every military venture, short of national self-defense, when responsible thought is given to the correlation of ends and means. One reason given for venturing into Iraq was the need to impress upon the nations of the world the decisive nature of U.S. intercessions. We effected this by going into Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have dulled the example we set out to make by tolerating costs without corresponding advances on the strategic goal."
A respect for the power of the United States is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will then be contempt.