As long as we keep paying instead of shooting, things will continue to improve. If we could stop shooting altogether and dump more money and more reconstruction help into Iraq, the place might become the "stable democracy" about which we've been hearing for six years.
We got what we wanted in the first place: oil coming out of Iraq, a foothold in the region, permanent military bases, influence, a dependent client right in the middle of a hotspot, etc. We will keep these things as long as we keep paying.
Hitchens celebrates the "liberation" of Iraq from the evil man Saddam. Fine, but let's be realistic about the support for terrorism, which can be expected to continue just as it continues in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and all the rest. Saddam financed suicide bombers, but he never got along very well with al Qaida. Now that the Iran-friendly Shi'ite factions are free of Saddam, they're able to raise money and send it along via Iran. Some of that money comes from what we pay them not to shoot at our troops.
All this is happening as we post record deficits here at home. Most people realize we're paying our way to a "victory" in Iraq and it's not cheap. Most people also realize the "victory" will go away if we stop paying. Most people realize we can't keep this up forever, and we may have to stop paying sometime soon. Trouble on the horizon. We get to choose what kind of trouble we want, I suppose, but it's going to be painful either way. We can hang on to our victory and rack up enormous debt, or we can stop spending and lose what we gained at great cost.
Personally, I agree with Hitchens, although I don't agree with his reasons. We were foolish to commit to this course of action in the first place, but we'd be more foolish to walk away now.
The lesson we should take away is, "Don't listen to people like Hitchens when they moralize about toppling dictators and liberating people." If we do, we're going to invade Iran next.
