Reply
Mon 8 Aug, 2005 09:39 pm
Christopher Hitchens asks a lot of questions.........anyone interested in answering?
Losing the Iraq War
Can the left really want us to?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2005, at 8:36 AM PT
Christopher Hitchens writes for Slate
Iraq: not a spectator sport
Another request in my in-box, asking if I'll be interviewed about Iraq for a piece "dealing with how writers and intellectuals are dealing with the state of the war, whether it's causing depression of any sort, if people are rethinking their positions or if they simply aren't talking about it." I suppose that I'll keep on being asked this until I give the right answer, which I suspect is "Uncle."
There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy. I think that those who supported regime change should confront the idea of defeat, and what it would mean for Iraq and America and the world, every day. It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.
It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces. None of the many blunders in postwar planning make any essential difference to that conclusion. Indeed, by drawing attention to the ruined condition of the Iraqi society and its infrastructure, they serve to reinforce the point.
How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?
The New York Times ran a fascinating report (subscription only), under the byline of James Glanz, on July 8. It was a profile of Dr. Alaa Tamimi, the mayor of Baghdad, whose position it would be a gross understatement to describe as "embattled." Dr. Tamimi is a civil engineer and convinced secularist who gave up a prosperous exile in Canada to come home and help rebuild his country. He is one among millions who could emerge if it were not for the endless, pitiless torture to which the city is subjected by violent religious fascists. He is quoted as being full of ideas, of a somewhat Giuliani-like character, about zoning enforcement, garbage recycling, and zero tolerance for broken windows. If this doesn't seem quixotic enough in today's gruesome circumstances, he also has to confront religious parties on the city council and an inept central government that won't give him a serious budget.
Question: Why have several large American cities not already announced that they are going to become sister cities with Baghdad and help raise money and awareness to aid Dr. Tamimi? When I put this question to a number of serious anti-war friends, their answer was to the effect that it's the job of the administration to allocate the money, so that there's little room or need for civic action. I find this difficult to credit: For day after day last month I could not escape the news of the gigantic "Live 8" enterprise, which urged governments to do more along existing lines by way of debt relief and aid for Africa. Isn't there a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq, after three decades of tyranny, war, and sanctions and now an assault from the vilest movement on the face of the planet? Unless someone gives me a persuasive reason to think otherwise, my provisional conclusion is that the human rights and charitable "communities" have taken a pass on Iraq for political reasons that are not very creditable. And so we watch with detached curiosity, from dry land, to see whether the Iraqis will sink or swim. For shame.
******
Curiously unmoving. Is Hitchens losing his touch?
goodfielder wrote:Curiously unmoving. Is Hitchens losing his touch?
GF
If the excerpt below doesn't move you.........you could be brain dead or so isolated in your eucalyptus padded cocoon that a few well chosen words will never hold any meaning for you. He perhaps has stopped his intellectual ranting and is now concentrating on an even more cerebral approach, which will, of course, severely limit his audience.
It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.
Re: Losing in Iraq by Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens wrote:
There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy....
Later
Hitchens wrote:....Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration?
Hitchens claims to be on neither side of the pro/anti Iraq debate, then spends the rest of the article showing how just how totally pro-invasion he is. If he wants to support the invasion, he has the right to do so, but don't con us by pretending to have a different position. He doesn't.
Re: Losing in Iraq by Christopher Hitchens
kelticwizard wrote:rayban1 wrote:
There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy...... Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration?
Hitchens claims to be on neigher side of the pro/anti Iraq debate, then spends the rest of the article showing how just how totally pro-invasion he is. If he wants to support the invasion, he has the right to do so, but don't con us by pretending to have a different position. He doesn't.
No.....KW.....with a sigh of frustration he has moved beyond that. See the excerpt in red above in my response to GF.
Hitchens wrote:....the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces.
I see no evidence to support the notion that Iraq was ready to implode any more than any other dictatorship was. Every Third World country has their stresses, but that doesn't mean they're all going to collapse.
Methinks Hitchens is struggling to come up with yet another justification for the invasion, since the old ones don't seem to be convincing too many Americans anymore.
The answer to the question that Hitchens asks is that anti-war activists are already civic work in Iraq while opposing the continued operation.
The American Friends service commitee makes this statement.
AFSC wrote:
The Board of the American Friends Service Committee grieves at the ongoing and increasing deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and others in Iraq, including as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and many more maimed.
We believe that an immediate end to hostilities is essential to stem the carnage.
We are convinced that the presence of U.S. troops is a destabilizing force in the region and contributes to the increasing loss of life.
We are anguished by the damage and lasting scars we are causing to another generation of American soldiers who have been asked to serve in another war in a distant place for questionable ends.
Therefore, we urge the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The AFSC is currently on the ground in Iraq woking on several projects including providing medicine and health care, clean water. They are also fundraising for Iraq civil products in the US and elsewhere.
Is that what you are looking for?
kelticwizard wrote:Hitchens wrote:....the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces.
I see no evidence to support the notion that Iraq was ready to implode any more than any other dictatorship was. Every Third World country has their stresses, but that doesn't mean they're all going to collapse.
Methinks Hitchens is struggling to come up with yet another justification for the invasion, since the old ones don't seem to be convincing too many Americans anymore.
You see it that way only if your mind is closed.......all Hitchens is asking is for you and others to consider the possible consequence of our inaction.
Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
Hitchens wrote:It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.
You know, I 'd be willing to put aside the wisdom or lack of wisdom of how we got into Iraq, and concentrate on what the best solution in that region might be and how we can bring it about, but I am a little lost as to what that solution might be or how we can achieve it.
As stated previously in another thread, Iraq is the only other country besides Iran where Shia is the religion of the majority of the people, and separation of church and state is not a concept the Mideast has much experience with. The Shiites especially have a feeling of oppression not just by the world in general, but by other Muslims, going back to the slaughter of their hero Hussein back in the 700's by the majority Muslims of the time. The Shia bond is deep.
Right now, the government in place in Iraq seems to be leaning toward Iran, which is of course a Shiite Islamist Republic.
If that is the direction the elected government freely goes-a copy of Iran-what have we accomplished? And is there an alternative to that that is realistic to achieve?
ebrown_p wrote:Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
No EBrown......My definition of a "closed mind" is a mind that is in denial of the obvious.
rayban1 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
No EBrown......My definition of a "closed mind" is a mind that is in denial of the obvious.
We are just saying the same thing, aren't we.
Here is an account of the Battle of
Karbala in 780 AD, where Shia split from the rest of the Muslims. Remember, Hussein was the grandson of Muhammad himself. It is indeed a heart rending account, and we can see that Hussein, while a fighter, is cast in an almost Christ-like mode. While the account seems to have a little editing, notably the numbers of enemy troops Hussein was supposed to have killed before he died, this is the account that Shias believe.
This is the bond shared by Shiites, which consititute the majority in both Iran and Iraq, and almost nowhere else.
KW wrote:If that is the direction the elected government freely goes-a copy of Iran-what have we accomplished? And is there an alternative to that that is realistic to achieve?
This is what the MSM (NYTimes) wants the American public to think because this is the single most mind destroying theory and the single most persuasive argument against the war in order to destroy the will to continue the struggle.
THE HAND WRINGING OF .....OH MY GOD, WE ARE CREATING ANOTHER IRAN COMPLETE WITH SHARIA LAW.
You seem to forget that the Kurds control roughly half the country and they will fight to the death to prevent that.
You forget also that Sistani is the most influential man in Iraq right now and he does not want civil war.
You forget also that there is a new American Ambassador sent by Rice to bring some sort of order to the apparent chaos. This ambassador has a deep understanding of the culture and has the best chance to break the impasse.
All I am saying is that it is still too early to throw in the towel in despair.
ebrown_p wrote:rayban1 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
No EBrown......My definition of a "closed mind" is a mind that is in denial of the obvious.
We are just saying the same thing, aren't we.
If you are saying that you will never accept the obvious.....then I guess we are saying same thing? :wink:
rayban1 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:rayban1 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
No EBrown......My definition of a "closed mind" is a mind that is in denial of the obvious.
We are just saying the same thing, aren't we.
If you are saying that you will never accept the obvious.....then I guess we are saying same thing? :wink:
I accept that.
Now let's get back to the topic.
rayban1 wrote: This is what the MSM (NYTimes)....
Sorry, Ray, I don't buy the "evil MSM" bit. I have been hearing conservatives shout about how they think the press is biased for decades, and most of the time it amounts to the press was not sufficiently biased
their way. This MSM business is the latest manifestation of that.
Rayban1 wrote:....(NY Times) wants the American public to think because this is the single most mind destroying theory and the single most persuasive argument against the war in order to destroy the will to continue the struggle.
You might not like the editorial posture, but most of the time the Times has been proven right against the accusation of bias from the right. From the Pentagon Papers on.
Rayban1 wrote:You seem to forget that the Kurds control roughly half the country and they will fight to the death to prevent that.
The Kurds control 75 seats out of a National Assembly of 275 seats. Yes, they can play games being the balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites for a few things, but how far is that really going to get them in their quest for a separate state within a state?
Rayban1 wrote:You forget also that Sistani is the most influential man in Iraq right now and he does not want civil war.
He is a Shiite cleric. The Americans served his purpose by getting rid of Saddam Hussein, who oppressed Shiites. How much more his loyalty to America extends beyond that is open to question.
Rayban1 wrote:You forget also that there is a new American Ambassador sent by Rice to bring some sort of order to the apparent chaos. This ambassador has a deep understanding of the culture and has the best chance to break the impasse.
Diplomacy has it's limits. You have to find common ground for agreements that will stick to occur. The factions in the Middle East have grudges going back to 780 AD. Your putting a lot of stock on the value of diplomacy.
Rayban1 wrote:All I am saying is that it is still too early to throw in the towel in despair.
Perhaps not, but the last I looked the Iraqi intelligence service was reporting to the Americans, not the Iraqi government. That's because the Iraqi government is considered too close to Iran already, and the intelligence is likely to end up in the hands of the Iranians. If they are this close already, when we are in there, how close will they be when our presence is reduced?
KW
Have you ever noticed that you repeat yourself a lot....so do I...let's try to break some new ground.
What is it about your use of a computer just during the week.......is this a sign of you being retired at work? :wink:
ebrown_p wrote:Rayban,
It seems like your definition of a "closed mind" is someone who disagrees with you.
Frankly, i'm surprised it has taken you this long to realize as much.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace