LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: "Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad."
I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner?
His defense of the war in Iraq is fairly convincing, as is his indictment of President Bush:
I have a ready answer to those who accuse me of being an agent and tool of the Bush-Cheney administration . . . Attempting a little levity, I respond that I could stay at home if the authorities could bother to make their own case, but that I meanwhile am a prisoner of what I actually do know about the permanent hell, and the permanent threat, of the Saddam regime. However, having debated almost all of the spokespeople for the antiwar faction, both the sane and the deranged, I was recently asked a question that I was temporarily unable to answer. "If what you claim is true," the honest citizen at this meeting politely asked me, "how come the White House hasn't told us?"
I do in fact know the answer to this question.
And later, this:
Two pieces of good fortune still attend those of us who go out on the road for this urgent and worthy cause. The first is contingent: There are an astounding number of plain frauds and charlatans (to phrase it at its highest) in charge of the propaganda of the other side. Just to tell off the names is to frighten children more than Saki ever could: Michael Moore, George Galloway, Jacques Chirac, Tim Robbins, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson . . . a roster of gargoyles that would send Ripley himself into early retirement. Some of these characters are flippant, and make heavy jokes about Halliburton, and some disdain to conceal their sympathy for the opposite side. So that's easy enough.
The second bit of luck is a certain fiber displayed by a huge number of anonymous Americans. Faced with a constant drizzle of bad news and purposely demoralizing commentary, millions of people stick out their jaws and hang tight. I am no fan of populism, but I surmise that these citizens are clear on the main point: It is out of the question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so are soft on crime and soft on fascism. The more temperate anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . .
DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all.
Bravo to Christopher Hitchens who remains one of the sanest voices to speak on this war. Great pointer JVL.
Now, saying the Abu Gahrib is better now than under Saddam is not saying much - Saddam was a monster. Certainly, not as bad as Saddam is not a claim to virtue, is it?
It seems to me that it is just as wrong to murder someonw for $1mil as for $1.
The punchline to an old joke is "We already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just haggling over the price."
Here's a nice post on it: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/06/314.html
Ultimately, it seems to me that we should simply not be in the business of "softening up" anybody but the most dangerous people. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter how many lives it saves.
Here's a nice post on that:
And if I may make one more comment, why is someone as intelligent as Hitchens saying that we have to choose between sticking tight and cutting and running.
Clearly, we are not winning. What we need is a plan to make the most of where we are.
One great place to start is to say, "We have no intention of permanent bases in Iraq." All the lying this president has done about Iraq, and he can't pull off that one?
The best plan I've seen for making the most of the situation is:
ah yes, juan cole. how many lies did he tell about slain reporter steven vincent, shot on august 02 of this year in basra?
mr vincent's widow has said there were quite a few. cole's response to her is feeble and snide.
he is not someone i would want in my foxhole.
And your plan for making the most of the situation in Iraq would be what?
Stay the course until the Army is trashed?
Stay the course and draft?
Or is your plan to change the subject?
Here's a few more ideas on how to improve things in Iraq.
Post a Comment