Hitchens almost made it through an entire article without taking a cheap, slanderous shot at somebody or something. Tragically, at the very end, he broke down and suggested that "liberals" (borrowing the craven language of American Fascism) might not appreciate good news out of Iraq, but rather secretly hope for the situation to get worse.
It isn't so much that I disagree with Hitchens that such "liberals" exist, only that I fail to see where his concern for human life is so much greater than theirs. If he chooses to peer at others through the lens of their lesser natures, perhaps he would care to apply that standard to himself.
The most odious attitude of the war's champions in this regard is to erase from history the years 2004 to 2006. Whatever Iraq is or might become, the death and horror of post-war Iraq is still incomprehensible to the Western mind, indeed, they dont spend much time thinking about the magnitude of all that sorrow, blood and poverty. Every piece of good news that comes out of Iraq now is scrutinized for affirmation of the war, some way of blotting out the mountain of human death that has come about, partially as a result of this pompous cheerleading.
One can easily understand Hitchens enthusiastic support of the invasion of Iraq by the incorruptible Bush administration, with their much admired record of defending human rights (one need look no farther than their harsh treatment of Saudi Arabia, their defense of Haitian democratic leaders, or their human rights priorities in trade deals with China). Who else would you trust with liberating a people in a humane and responsible fashion?
War is butchery. It means not just death for civilian and tyrant alike, but loss of home, wealth, health, electricity, water, relations, community and dare I say it human happiness. The compassionate Bush administration unfortunately does not think it a priority to count how many Iraqis died thanks to their actions, but we can say that whatever the number is, suffering in war extends well beyond mere death.
Going to war to oust a dictator sounds wonderful on paper, and I doubt anyone with a human heart would be opposed to Saddam Hussein's removal. But who is going to do it, and how, and why, are shockingly enough important questions. Given that we have learned not to trust Dick Cheney on a hunting expedition, why ought we to trust him with the lives of 30 million of our fellow humans? Given that Bush did not realize there are (at least) two kinds of Muslims before invading the country, why should anyone trust him with establishing a modern democracy there?
If, as Hitchens says, Iraq was an abbatoir state under Saddam, did it not become an abbatoir state under Bush thereafter? The (intelligent) liberal argument has as its priority human life as its first consideration. I, for one, would not trust the American government to share my priorities.
There are other, less explored arguments that I will not detail here, how democracy cannot be imposed easily, how occupation, even the most benign, is humiliating to the occupied, how the Bush administration was not invading Iraw out of altruism but clearly for more self-serving reasons, how Saddam might have been overthrown from within had the West chosen to support movements that were outside their control yet democratic nonetheless.
For this is the heart of the (intelligent) liberal opposition to the war, and I do understand how the war's advocates, guilty of the hyperbole that deluded the masses into supporting a nightmare, might prefer to pick on the easy argument rather than the difficult one.
