In an article today, even William F. Buckley has stated that he is unable to support the President's proposal for an increase in the troop level in Iraq. Whether you are a fan of Buckley or not, this is an interesting article as he, at times, has represented the more thoughtful branch of the conservative Republicans. In the article, Buckley sees the only viable solution as:
A geographical division of Iraq is inevitable. The major players are obvious. It isn't plain how the United States, as an outside party, could play an effective role, let alone one that was decisive, in that national redefinition. And the United States would do well to encourage non-U.S. agents to act as brokers -- people with names like Ban Ki-moon.
In the final of his article, he has an imaginary congressman saying
On the basis of this analysis I will vote against supplementary U.S. involvement in Iraq.
In the final analysis, the President will undoubtably do what he wishes to do, but if he does not show quick results from this action, I do not know how he will avoid having even those who once supported him from seeking another solution. I found the article to be an interesting one from the conservative view it can be found here
