"To have savaged and discredited al-Qaida in an open fight and to have taken down a fascist Baath Party, which betrayed its pseudosecularism by forging an alliance with al-Qaida,"

Hitchens is worried that we are not celebratory enough about the positive trends in Iraq. Liberals and Democrats, he argues, would prefer defeat.

The outcome in Iraq is important for many reasons, including our moral obligation to atone for the mess we made and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths following our invasion. For this reason I am heartened by the decline in violence and hope it is a trend rather than a cycle.

But there is another contest going on here - for the heart and soul of America.

On Hitchen's side are those who want an imperial America, ready to go out and use military force to remake the world into our image of what it should look like. They are ready to forge justifications for such acts, like the quote above, which claims both victory and moral justification. Like Hitchens, they overlook the real costs of such adventures and who pays the bulk of those ongoing costs.

On the other side is a loose opposition coalition.

Some are motivated by moral concerns, some by historically-informed knowledge of the costs of imperialism and where it leads - committed anti-imperialists.

In the middle is a group who can be swayed either way - susceptible to claims of glory and destiny, open to tales of danger and vengence, but leary of how these adventures will affect them and their families - potentially pragmatic opponents of particular adventures.

The current opposition to Iraq is split about 50/50 between committed anti-imperialists and pragmatic opponents of the mess we have in Iraq.

Hitchens is arguing here that, hey, it's ok, the sharks are going, the water's fine, jump back in! - Essentially, trying to regain control of the narrative on Iraq after a couple of years in which his version of how to make history has been a bloody failure.

The anti-imperialists, often liberals and Democrats but including Republicans and conservatives, are trying to wind down this adventure and limit its growing costs. That requires keeping the pragmatic opposition in the coalition, which requires in turn countering the rhetoric of victory, celebration, and justification.

Great Britain is no longer Great; it's centuries of imperial adventure and global hegemony did very little to benefit the bulk of the population, brought it into repeated wars, and eventually left it washed up on the shore, a second-rank power. It is no longer a suitable vessel for the grand dreams of imperialists like Hitchens. The US, however, has more potential, so Hitchens has abandoned Britain to make his home here, to try to convince the crew to take this ship on a grand imperial adventure.

I'm just a guy from the Midwest, where we dislike arrogance, value friendliness, and helping your neighbor. Sure, sometimes you have to fight, but usually a fight is an admission of failure to find a better way to work things out. I've also studied history and learned a little of the benefits and costs of ambition. If we follow the imperial road, we're going to exhaust a good deal of our treasure and suffer the inevitable decline, at a time when the globe faces challenges of unprecendented magnitude and needs our steady leadership. We need a more humble foreign policy that conserves our resources, preserves our strength and influence, and leads, like a neighbor, by example rather than coercion.

In short, Hitchens, I do not like your dream - please take it somewhere else.

Great post. You see it like it is.Shame that the imperialists really believe they are right.

You picked a good Hitchens quote to pick apart, but I am leery of those who call this action "imperialism" and claim it is somehow outside American values. In fact it is very much in line with the themes of Kennedy's speeches, very much in line with Clinton's policies. That is not to say I think Gore would have taken us this way (and so shame on the Naderites who say there's no difference between dems and repubs), but I am sure you have heard all the democrats' warnings against Saddam prior to the Bush presidency. Clearly, they found there to be a pressing need to deal with Saddam beyond what we had been doing.

The Middle East is in a terrible state right now and no, the United States is not the culprit. It was a malady long in coming. At some point or another, I believe we were going to be militarily involved in the region, whether it was Iran, Syria, or the war with Saudi Arabia many seem to foolishly beat the drum for. 9/11 brought home the need for a new era for our foreign policy. Iraq to me was certainly not the wisest course (I would have preferred a much different counterterrorism-based military action) but it has been embarked upon nevertheless. It is not that I don't feel your frustration, find you somehow unpatriotic, much less "wrong," but the time for "The Iraq War sucks!" is past. Certainly it is past for any democrat who wishes to win the presidency.

As for the deaths caused, much of that is due to the civil conflict. Saddam of course kept the lid on that--by killing hundreds and thousands of Iraqis himself. So let's not play the moral equivalence game. How, indeed, do we "atone" for it? That is the question of our future, isn't it. I notice a lot of opposition to the war is really opposition to Bush himself. I did not vote for the man either time. But when people heard Tony Blair, England's Clinton, on the topic, they always said "he makes a lot more sense." That is telling, to me--was it the message, or the messenger?

I share this rejection of labeling our misadventure "Imperialism". It almost seems quaintly Marxist. I fail to see how our interest in certain outcomes in the Mideast resembles British Imperialism of the 19th century. Playing fast and loose with terminology seems counterproductive to me. The dynamic of globalization and the desire for stabilization do not Imperialism make.

Both Hellzapoppin and epicuria offer useful and reasoned critiques. You can criticize my use of the term "Imperialism". History moves on and the conditions and attitudes we respond to are different. I don't intend to suggest our adventures are the same as British imperialism, or that this strain in our foreign policy is the product of Bush or neocons or Republicans alone. But commentators such as Niall Ferguson call on the US to take up the burden of the imperial hegemon. True, this is imperium without annexation and tribute. I'll be happy to take your nomination for other labels to apply to a policy that includes bases in something upwards of 120 countries and asserting the right to unilaterally and premptively invade any country on earth. We are not the only culprit in the condition of the Middle East, of course. Can I criticize policy without risking the assumption that such criticism means I am one-dimensional and tend to blame America first? Nevertheless, we have a history in the region, including involvement with Saddam Hussein from the late 1950s when the CIA employed him in an assassination attempt. I opposed the invasion and occupation, but support Petraeus' efforts to stand up local security forces and tie them together into a national structure. I think it is owed to the Iraqis, and stabilizing Iraq serves many national interests. I am not interested in premature declarations of success. Unlike many Democrats, I am not willing to concede 'defeat'. Unlike most Republicans, I am not interested in winning a 'victory'. Instead, we need to start with a careful assessment of national interest priorities, set realistic goals, and develop goal-oriented strategies, conscious of both short and long-term benefits and costs.

The dynamic of globalization and the desire for stabilization do not Imperialism make.

Well said, but incomplete.

It needs acknowledgement that Bush sought to destablize the Middle East in favor of millenarial goals and domestic political advantages.

The dynamic of globalization requires a matching globalization of policing. (I learned a bit about this dynamic in researching the history of the incorporation of the Pacific into the world system in the 19th century.) Attempting to take on this task requires an imperial-like extension of regulation, monitoring, and punishment, if taken on unilaterally. Historically it leads to over-extension and decline. Stabilization requires the further development of multilateral international institutions able to negotiate agreements and share the burdens and benefits of security.

And, last and least, I had hoped that we were past the stage when 'Marxist' was tossed around as a scarlet letter? Marx was a brilliant classical economist with both insights and serious errors to his credit. I try to be familiar with some of the basics of his theories as much as Adam Smith, David Riccardo, or later figures such as Friedrich Hayek or Herbert Simon.