Slate has chosen to rerun an article written by Christopher Hitchens some time in 2005. This article, apparently, prompted Mark Daily to enlist in the US Army, who sent him to Iraq, where he was killed by an IED, prompting Hitchens to write another article in Vanity Fair. These are quite different stories, and Hitchens deserves respect and praise for writing the second one, even though his first misses the mark.
In this first article, Hitchens assails the "writers and intellectuals" who through moral laxity and reflexive action oppose the US invasion/occupation of Iraq and discredit them for not offering more humanitarian aid to the many afflicted people there.
The article tries to make a useful point, but falls on its own fallacies. Yes, it's true that the Saddam Ba'ath regime was horribly oppressive, expansionist, and genocidal. It is also true that much help is needed in Iraq. And that an abrupt military withdrawal from Iraq would throw not just Iraq but the region into greater instability, with unpredictable but surely awful consequences.
And I am the first to agree that "writers and intellectuals" all too often lack grounding in reality and reason, and seem to write to placate their friends and fans rather than profess the truth. (And Hitchens deserves some kind of barnstar for being unafraid of pissing people off, if little else).
But several problems remain:
- Humanitarian relief was never a rationale for invading Iraq. There was fear of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's belligerency toward neighbors, possible assistance for terrorist groups, and what was billed as the secondary but was really the primary rationale, namely that a democratic Iraq would cause a virtuous domino effect in the Arab world, proving a third way to religious fundamentalism and corrupt secular totalitarianism. But nobody ever talked about humanitarian rescue.
- And the reason for that is obvious: virtually every Arab state needs humanitarian relief. Syria and Egypt are horribly poor; Lebanon has become a battleground for every opposing force in the region; and all the others range from struggling heroically to depressingly backward. You can't condemn people for not doing more to help Iraqis if you won't at least criticize them for ignoring conditions, in, say, Somalia.
- Saying that the Iraqi invasion was a mistake is not the same as advocating a mindless capitulation and withdrawal. Anyone who is honest about the situation will have to say "we have to put behind us how we got into this mess and focus on how to get out of it." We will not undo Bush's folly by pulling out. Hitchens would do well to focus his considerable energy and writing skills toward fostering a more honest debate about what the fuck we should do next.
Comments