Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Machiavelli in Mesopotamia (Hitchens makes the case for "regime change" in Iraq.)
Slate ^ | 11/7/02 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 11/07/2002 4:26:38 PM PST by xm177e2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Christopher Hitchens will be on C-Span tomorrow morning with Andrew Sullivan from 8-10am Eastern taking your calls. I found this article via AndrewSullivan.com
1 posted on 11/07/2002 4:26:38 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
A rather refreshing honest admission by a hawk on the proposed war with Iraq and it has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" or Iraq as a threat to us at all but about hegemony for the entire region with Iraq as just the first in a long list of wars and interventions.
2 posted on 11/07/2002 4:33:21 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
it has nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction" or Iraq as a threat to us

Hitch never said that.

The actual subtitle of the article was "The case against the case against "Regime Change" in Iraq," this was meant to be an argument against the anti-war critics.

In any case, just because Hitch justifies this intervention on the moral level doesn't mean hawks in Washington are thinking solely on that level. There are plenty of other reasons to go to war, and WMD is one of them.

3 posted on 11/07/2002 4:47:23 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
However—and here is the clinching and obvious point—Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion. It has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Like the Ceausescu edifice in Romania, it is a pyramid balanced on its apex (its powerbase a minority of the Sunni minority), and when it falls, all the consequences of a post-Saddam Iraq will be with us anyway.

Pretty good argument for containment rather than proactive intervention.

4 posted on 11/07/2002 4:54:08 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
...until one considers the great liklihood that his replacement will be just as bad (if not worse) if we don't "assist" the customer in making the right "purchase."
5 posted on 11/07/2002 5:08:43 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
"These "root causes" lay in the political slum that the United States has been running in the region, and in the rotten nexus of client-states from Riyadh to Islamabad. Such causes cannot be publicly admitted, nor can they be addressed all at once. But a slum-clearance program is beginning to form in the political mind. "

This is really the only arguement against interfering in Iraq. Given the State Departments miserable handling of the US's "client" states to date, what has changed to make it reasonable to assume that they will do better in the future?

I have no doubt that the US military can get rid of Saddam. I am not so confident that what follows will be any better.

We seem to have a penchant for helping people over there who a few years down the road turn on us, and become our biggest headaches. Compare this to what is happening in Iran where we have been conspiciously absent for the last 20 years?

6 posted on 11/07/2002 5:29:17 PM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell; Nogbad
Hitchens on Iraq ping.
7 posted on 11/07/2002 5:35:31 PM PST by keri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I find the article refreshing and honest. However, I don't take from it what you do. I see it as an intelligent and thoughtful position on what preemtion is really about. I also love his vocabulary.
8 posted on 11/07/2002 5:39:00 PM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monday
Yes. It is quite the paradox isn't it? Where America has not had her influence felt in the Middle East for years (like Iran) they seem to love us. But where we do prop up corrupt ruling regimes they hate us. We are a beacon- our example alone is enough to topple these regimes without our interference. But if we go there we become the focul point of hate for every nutjob ideology in the region. Iran has had no contact with America or interference with us for 20 years. And yet the Iranians love us. Let the Middle East alone and they will all see what the Iranians see. In short- let them grow up by themselves. Otherwise we will give them decades more of excuses and bring ourselves more 9/11's.
9 posted on 11/07/2002 6:11:59 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
I don't doubt the intentions of those who want to go to war with Iraq and that region generally. They have good inentions. But are they wise? Are they sound? Are they good for this nation? I don't think so and stand in opposition.
10 posted on 11/07/2002 6:13:57 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Bump!
11 posted on 11/07/2002 6:24:31 PM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Principled and thoughtful opposition is what I find so wonderful about this place. You give me the opportunity for espectful disagreement and constant rethinking of my position.
12 posted on 11/07/2002 6:43:42 PM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Exactly. Iraq is the keystone of the arch. If you go in there first, then Iran will probably have a regime change from within, as the Iranians finally overthrow their puritan clerics. Then, once you have a stable grip on Iraq's oil, you can afford to deal with Saudi Arabia. To take on the Saudis without that handle on Iraqi oil reserves would be to risk an international economic catastrophe. Not only that, but the downfall of the Iraqi regime will probably destabilize the Saudi Royal family, giving us a good excuse to go in and straighten things out.

The remaining domino in this picture is Syria, which Hitchens neglects to mention. We will probably need to invade Syria, too, and free Lebanon from the terrorists who infest it. That will likely be the next step right after we finish with Saddam.
13 posted on 11/07/2002 6:58:27 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Then why not be honest about it? Why not talk about these options in the open? Or are the American people too stupid to know all these secret plans? Whatever happened to the Weapons of Mass Destrution? Maybe little 18 year old Johnny in Alabama should know all this before he signs up for the marines and is put in harms way?
14 posted on 11/07/2002 7:14:55 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Me as well. I am solidly anti war with Iraq. But I bristle and get sick when I hear the Left "anti war" crowd talk. In fact- the left shows how much they hate this country in their "anti war" talk. They are not "anti war"- they are anti American. If Satan himself had a nation called Hell- and the United States was waging war against Satan's state the Left in this country would be protesting against our war effort!

Don't confuse patriotic opposition to any war against Iraq with the disgusting cliches and typical reactions of the Hate America Left. They have no credibility.

15 posted on 11/07/2002 7:46:23 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
A Bolshevik makes the case for invading Iraq. How come he sounds like Norman Podhoretz?
16 posted on 11/07/2002 9:46:17 PM PST by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Thank you for the heads up, re C-SPAN! Both are formidable thinkers/writers. I shall set my self to arise and watch, maybe even participate with a call in. That will be a delightful two hours.
17 posted on 11/07/2002 9:55:48 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
He sounds that way to you because you do not understand the fundamentals of a contrarian.
18 posted on 11/07/2002 9:58:53 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
He was a Trotskyist, and he's still one.
19 posted on 11/07/2002 10:43:35 PM PST by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: keri; Mitchell
Hitchens is OK,
I just wish he didn't have to be so moralistically superior about everything.

Can't we just simply say we are going to bump off Saddam
because we don't like the way he looks?
That's good enough for me.

And also, it gets tedious and is so juvenile all this pontificating and 'geopolitical' analysis
and predictions about the course of events
that will occur thereafter.

No one can control the consequences of Saddam's removal
any more than they could control the consequences of Archduke Franz Ferdinand's removal
in 1914.

20 posted on 11/07/2002 11:22:20 PM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson