Hitch

Christopher Hitchens' Weekly Standard article asks why the Bush Administration is so tongue-tied in defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq, and offers the presentation that should made.

...a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

Anybody who reads this blog knows I've supported of the decision to take down Saddam Hussein from the very first.  Actually it goes back to 1991.  What seems so clear to me, that taking him out was strategically the best possible choice that could be made, if we we're serious about bringing peace to the region. 

My only disagreement with Hitch is when he refers in point 4 above to the "quasi-criminal network" among the UN elite.  What's quasi about it?  They're crooks.

Comments

[Aakash]

When I saw the first entry, upon coming to this weblog, I saw that this site may not be entirely what one would expect, from its title. This other recent entry confirms this.

I think that this type of philosophy may correspond to what's on the sidebar; I've seen several weblogs in this "neolibertarian" Blogosphere segment. I've read some commentary from libertarian web publications on this type of ideology; Professor Rothbard had an article on this issue, from a few years ago (though I'm not saying that it necessarily applies to this weblog, and to others in the 'neolibertarian network'... It was from the 1990s, I think). Anyway, interesting weblog... And when I get more time (it's - quite unfortunately - past 1:00 AM here)... I should look around 'Libertarian Leanings' more.

[Tom Bowler]

Please do look around Libertarian Leanings, and feel welcome. You are correct in that you won't find the strict capital "L" Libertarian philosophy that I might have favored some years ago.