Rather stunningly, in lieu of President Bush and his minions, Christopher Hitchens, a former Trotskyite leftist, has lately emerged as the principal expositor of the pro-war agenda. Instead of relying on President Bush to sell his policies and agenda with comprehensible adult rhetoric to his constituents, Hitch has been on a rampage lately, rather famously sliming all over Cindy Sheehan, and, in general, gratuitously insulting anyone and everyone with which he might disagree about the war in Iraq.
Hitch has now written a serious piece for the Weekly Standard Weekly Standard which, in my opinion requires a serious response. In his article, Hitch has listed several reasons that he believes supports the conclusion that the Iraq war is something to be proud of. This diary will address his list:
{More after the break}
Before I get to his list, I should first state that there is a fundamental difference in the way Hitch views the Iraq war and the way I view it. He apparently believes, as does President Bush, that the war in Iraq is part and parcel of a wider war on "terror," which includes Afghanistan. I do not agree. While I fully support our mission in Afghanistan and believe that we and the international community are justified in seeking to bring Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, Omar and other deputies to justice, I am of the opinion that the Iraq war was started for far different reasons and was based on completely different justifications. There is thus an enormous gulf of understanding between the way he states his views and what I think is the common understanding - and this gulf cannot be bridged easily. Nonetheless, he presents his arguments succinctly and seriously and deserves a serious response.
Hitch lists 10 bullet points as a basis for his conclusion and I will go through each of them one-by-one.
- He first claims that the war has led to the overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism. If the discussion is limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectfully, this is accurate. But the Taliban remains a central force in the eastern highlands in Afghanistan and remains an active force in Northern Pakistan and in the Tribal areas of Waziristan. And the Baathists, of course, remain in power in Syria. So, the ideologies have not been overthrown or defeated, but their governments have been removed. I agree with Hitch that this is laudable in both cases although one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Score one for Hitch - the removal of Saddam Hussein is and remains the principal redeeming feature of the Iraq war. It happened two and a half years ago and a lot has happened since then, but it remains a plus.
- He next claims that Libya's desire to re-enter the world of commerce and good relations by canceling their WMD program resulted from the Iraq war. I have seen this claim made many times, and there may a tangential relationship, but causality has certainly never been proven, and definitely not by Hitch. Moreover, Hitch has not provided any proof that Libya's WMD program ever amounted to much of anything. Aluminum tubes?? Mobile weapons labs?? Additionally, Libya could well be cheating or intending to cheat, like Iran and North Korea. I apparently demand higher standards of proof than does Hitch, especially after all of the lies about Iraq's supposed WMD program. If I were Arlen Specter and had a yen for quoting obscure Scottish legal principles, I would have to say that this is not proven.
- He next claims that the war unmasked the Khan network for purported proliferation of nuclear technology. The Iraq war, of course, had nothing to do with this, and in fact, the U.S. had little to do with it either (as it primarily was a Pakistani operation). And punishment has been fairly mild, in any event, leading one to query as to what the benefit of this is precisely.
- He next claims that UN reform has resulted. This is obtuse - especially because UN reform has not as yet occurred and Ambassador Bolton seems to be in the process of killing it. At the very least, we must await and see on this one.
- He next claims something about Chirac and Schroeder and their commitment to neutralism. This is positively bizarre; especially because Germany is a principal ally in Afghanistan. In any event, it has nothing to do with Iraq and Iran seems well on its way to going nuclear, which is hardly an accomplishment.
- He next claims that we can now certify that Iraq has disarmed and no longer have to take Saddam Hussein's word for it. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and Muhammed al Baradei could also have certified this without the war. And Iraq never had nukes anyway. Hitch seems to be reaching now...
- He next cites the immense gains of the Kurds. This is a good point other than the fact that this occurred under Jay Garner (and Clinton) after the first Gulf War. It has not been altered in any material way since then. His point, therefore, while good, is somewhat ananchronistic.
- He next claims enormous benefits for Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. While hopeful in each case, this is also most definitely in a wait and see mode. Mubarak, as expected, will probably swamp any opponents, Hezbollah remains quite powerful, perhaps even more so, and Baathist Syria is hardly moving towards democracy and (ominously) seems to be aiding the Iraqi insurgency.
- He next claims that deaths of insurgents is a good sign and one to be "proud" of. Perhaps, but the deaths of innocents weighs rather markedly in the other direction.
- And finally, he claims that the training and hardening of the American service personnel is beneficial. Maybe, but the deaths, maimings, increased mental illness and disrupted family lives weigh otherwise.
To sum up, then, we are left with item #1 - the fall of Saddam - and a lot of other questionable or yet-to-be-accomplished "accomplishments." Which is pretty much where we were when we started. Yes, we're happy that Saddam is not in power (although no trial has as yet commenced), but that's about it. And to reiterate, that happened 29 months ago and there is only so much blood that can be squeezed from that turnip. And, of course, it doesn't answer why Casey Sheehan died in 2004 - Saddam was well gone by then and even in U.S. hands as of December 2003.
Does Hitch have any other reasons/justifications?? He does a better job than Bush, but not by much. And, where is the analysis of the WMD lies?? The Judith Miller lies and cover-up? The Downing Street Minutes?? And why can't he limit the discussion to Iraq??
Frankly, I'm less than impressed...
3.