Hitchens has it in his head that a collapsed Iraq will not reach equilibrium in a tidy three-state wreckage pattern, but rather a more complex one "with Iran and Saudi Arabia becoming patrons of their favorite proxies and, in the meantime, a huge impetus given to the 'cleansing' of hitherto-mixed cities and provinces."

He then goes on to brag of how he "never tires of saying" that we don't deserve the blame for this since it would have happened anyway: had Saddam's regime been allowed to stay in power, it would have toppled of its own accord, creating the same power vacuum and resultant chaos that we see today.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't that a tacit admission that our presence in Iraq hasn't helped? Those whom Hitchens would likely label as "defeatist" make a similar point when arguing for an immediate withdrawal, except they also acknowledge a few other pertinent facts: our troops are dying, we're spending more than we can afford, we're not making progress, our international credibility is nil, and we're recruiting for Al-Qaeda.

Hitchens says our presence in Iraq hasn't made things any worse than they eventually would have become anyway. Leaving aside the fact that this is nonsense, would he also have us believe that it somehow justifies our decision to invade? Not only is it ridiculous to think that Mr. Hitchens' predictive powers are such that he could ever make this claim with the confidence he projects (or should I say "never tire of" making this claim?), it is the single weakest argument I've ever heard advanced in supposed "support" of the war: we haven't made things worse, therefore it's all been worth our while, to say nothing of our blood.

It sounds more like something someone would say if they were trying to assuage their guilt for having lent fanatical support to an idea that's done so much damage to the world. I am disappointed to see that Hitchens would choose to fall back on this argument rather than admit that he was wrong, especially since he's made such a name for himself by spectacularly exposing charlatans and frauds.

Hitchens is peddling baloney. Iraq was not going to splinter into three countries before we invaded. It isn't going to be stable unless we can bring it back to being one nation. The most desireable way of doing that is to get the Iraqi Constitution rewritten so that it actually creates ONE democratic republic for ALL Iraqis where they are all equal under law. The administration is too busy pretending they have already created a democracy to do this, though. What they really created was a theocracy and an ethnic stronghold. The attempt at a Constitution for Iraq that was "adopted" is pathetic. So is the government that piece of garbage created. Until the administration admits this and gets the Iraqis working on a Constitution that will actually work, there is little hope for things to get better other than another strongman somehow forcing himself into power.

Until things change, it will not be safe for us to leave Iraq. The difficulty in leaving, however, has nothing to do with al Qaeda in Iraq and is really due to the splintering and the pull that creates for neighboring nations to get involved in the violence.

Well said, Malarkey. What would give Hitchens, one of my favorite writers out there, a lot more credibility is if he held the occupation to account for its miserable failures.

Hitchens was for ousting Hussein long before George W. Bush was and felt it was a vital strategic and moral mission to do so. So it seems he should be screaming at the top of his lungs how this action has been so poorly bungled. I can only believe that he thinks that by doing so he would be adding to the voices which outright reject the mission entirely.

The administration is too busy pretending they have already created a democracy to do this, though.

It looks like they have given up pretending too. When the surge has run out of steam, expect the next phase to be about the Allawi plan to save Iraq. We will be told that Allawi can do what Patraesu could not do and that we owe it to the Iraqis and the troops of course, to give the plan time to work.

It will be interesting though to hear Hitches square the rise of a new Sunni strongman (a former memebr fo Saddam's secret police) in Iraq with his pious rantings about democracy and human rights.

Bird, you're just not paying attention. In Hitch's Weekly Standard piece, "A War to be Proud Of," (which I've cited, quoted, and linked to from here more times than I like to think about), Hitch described the Bushies' bungling as everything short of criminal--or at least not certainly criminal. Hitch has already done his screaming--someone's not listening.

only neocon proto-fascists read "Weekly Standard".

So shove it, Mengele.

Only an idiot lefty would post such a stupid response. Does a Hitch criticism of Bush not "count" as criticism if it's published in the Weekly Standard? In addition to citing that article numerous times, I've had to point out to several numbskulls like you that this kind of complaint about publication in an "unapproved" source is even dumber than usual.

Yes, I'm sure that if Hitchen's had planned and run the war, Iran and Syria would also have been toppled by now. Democracy, peace and and the righteous Good of Godless civilization would have flourished all over the Middle East. Mecca would reopen as a tourist attraction with rides, gift shops and ATMs - just in time for Ramadan, the new Halmark Holiday!

You're being sarcastic, but to be fair I think Hitchens probably woulndn't have messed it up this bad...

IMO any plan for the invasion and Westernization of Iraq would have had little hope of succeeding. How can Hitchens possibly say with a straight face that the same thing would have happened had there been no preemptive attack? He completely misses the point that going to war with a country to topple its government and impose a new one is very much a different operation than going into a country to stop a failing regime from imploding a whole nation (or region).

Varian, I'm glad to hear that. I love the Hitch. He's the one pundit I would most like to drink a lot of whiskey with, and I'm not taking shots at him. He's brilliant.

I used to read his stuff on his own personal website and haven't done much but read it on Slate.

I wish he'd grapple with the practical way forward at this point, rather than the purely moral/political. We are physically running out of options.

Wonder if the ninny ever thought about the implications of using the "since the place was going to implode anyway, why not speed up the process" argument. The morality of such thoughts!! Nevermind that amidst all the hand wringing and recriminations it is totally forgotten now that the main purpose for the invasion (trumpeted incessantly by the neos and the admin.) was the everlasting threat of those dastardly wmds in Saddam's vaults and papier mache drone delivery systems.

Hitchens himself is the enemy of civilization in that case - or maybe in any case...