History Hitch
All the War on Terror talk the past few weeks has been so depressing I’ve been rather ignoring it all, so let’s all pause and regroup…
I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida’s most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.
But the many disappointments and crimes and blunders (the saddest of which is the utter failure to influence Iran, and the corresponding advantage taken by Tehran-backed militias) do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq’s affairs, starting with the 1968 Baathist coup endorsed by the CIA, stretching through Jimmy Carter’s unforgivable permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, continuing through the decades of genocide in Kurdistan and the uneasy compromise that ended the Kuwait war, and extending through 12 years of sanctions and half-measures, including the “no-fly” zones and the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It is not a responsibility from which we can walk away when, or if, it seems to suit us.
Thank you Mr Hitchens! (Emphasis mine)
But all demands for an evacuation are based on the fantasy that there is a distinction between “over there” and “over here.” In a world-scale confrontation with jihadism, this distinction is idle and false. It also involves callously forgetting the people who would be the first victims but who would not by any means be the last ones.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Oh, thank you! Hitch is about the only pundit considering the moral implications of our actions right now.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:00 pm
This is all very interesting, but what we really want to see is a picture of your jack o’ lantern!
November 1st, 2006 at 1:10 am
That’s very good.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:48 am
Hitchens makes some crucial points, but he stops too soon. The multilateralists who have been screaming for years how Bush snubbed our “allies” will get a horrible surprise if Iraq is abandoned.
Much of the planet will conclude that America in the end always abandons its allies for reasons of domestic politics. They will point to South Vietnam as the other example (yes, even those who screamed “Hands off Vietnam” are not above using that example).
Who will want to be an ally to that nicer, humbler US? Even a Democrat administration will come to regret what their ideological stooges have done to weaken America´s image abroad. Perhaps they will see why politics should have stopped at the waters edge.
What used to be the mantra? “We cannot go it alone”? But how many beleaguered nations and populations would not rather cast their lot with those second rate powers who are doing fine by going it alone, because they are sending a strong signal that they will have to be dealt with four years hence, when nobody knows who will be in the White House by then.
You would think that Hitchen´s mortal enemies, the proponents of Realpolitik, understood that mechanism even if they do not generally care about third world peoples.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:19 am
Nice work, wf.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:26 am
Good comments, wf. The Democrats to us are genuinely scary at the moment, and not just because of Lurch. I for one don’t quite understand how major figures in a major political party can be quite so out of it. We have plenty of our own loons, but they tend to be restricted to the minor/third parties. The Democrats used to be a sensible party - judging by Ronald Reagan’s (? some actor anyway) comment that he didn’t leave the party, the party left him. It’s very dangerous to have only one party which has a clue - which is what you are saying in effect.
Anyway, you’ll always have an ally down under.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:41 am
Ooh good discussion, people! (Maybe I should get you to start calling me “Miss”?)
The Democrats do have a clue, they just also have the unassailable belief that everything will always be okay when they’re in power again, and anything they screw up now can be fixed later, because they’re the presumptive leaders. It’s all about beating Bush (which is worthwhile since he’s screwing everything up so much, see comments in Rove Strikes II). They doubly can’t stand the idea that these Serious Times will put a Republican in a good light, all the more reason to fight that much harder to get rid of him so they can handle it. If they were in power, they’d sound like they sounded in the 90s, when they were in power, which is all completely the opposite of how they sound now. Except even when they sound right they’re still wrong and still got us into this mess.
And as for wf, he’s completely right. This is serious stuff, but they see it as a political dance. (And don’t get me started on that ridiculous column Peggy Noonan wrote the other week that some Republicans actually liked)
November 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
You and me, babe. United forever in being underwhelmed by ol’ Points o’Light Peg.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:00 am
Oh god but it was so, so… frivolous! And from Her of the Constant Emotional Manipulation! Augh!
November 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I skipped it. From the people who were recommending it, I could just smell something pointless and maddening.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
But even the Anchoress was all Oh Peggy you’re so right as always tee hee hee! and I was left smacking myself over the head screeching Why why whyyyy?!