The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Monday, March 27, 2006
Betrayal of the highest order
Don't miss this interview between Hugh Hewitt and Christopher Hitchens, as captured by Radio Blogger. Hitchens, formerly an ardent leftist, has done an about-face since 9/11, much to the chagrin of his former colleagues at The New Republic. Sort of a latter-day David Horowitz. And if you ask me there is nothing more satisfying that watching a former leftist intellectual rip to shreds the left's sacred cows. And what can be more sacred than the betrayal of the United States by its press corps. A delicious interview:
HH: Happy to have back to begin today's show Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair columnist, author of many books, including a recent bio of Thomas Jefferson. And a great time to talk to you, Christopher Hitchens, as this is the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. There have been a lot of lookbacks, including a couple of which I participated that have focused on the media's role in reporting from Iraq. I'm wondering, generally, do you think the media is doing a good job in conveying both the stakes and the situation on the ground in Iraq?
CH: Not really, I don't. I mean, I can think of some outstanding reporters who've done their very best to cover it. Michael Gordon's new book, for example, I think is very good. And John Burns from the New York Times is outstanding, much better than his newspaper, when he writes there, that's to say. It's just that I've been doing this business for a long time. I've been a journalist for most of my life, and it must be nearly 40 years now, and I know a press herd mentality when I see one. I really do. And sometimes, I approve. I mean, I remember when I was in Bosnia, all of the press was hostile to Milosevic in one way or another, and as it happened, I thought that was the right bias to have. But I did realize it was a bias. And when I've been in the company of people covering Iraq, I notice this...another herd mentality, and it's been there since before the war, and it's placed a bet on quagmire at best.
HH: Yeah, I tried to make an argument last night...
CH: And defeat at worst. And in some ways, it doesn't want its prediction to be falsified. I won't say any more than that. It's not a conspiracy, but it's definitely a mindset.
HH: That's my point. Last night on CNN, I was debating this with Michael Ware from Time Magazine. Do you know him, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: I don't, but I was on CNN with Michael Weiskopf of Time Magazine a few nights ago, who said that the only person capable of unifying Iraq was Saddam Hussein, and I thought good grief. We've come this far to hear that?
HH: That's...this is exactly...I want to play you a little bit. Michael Ware's a very respected war correspondent. He's covered Timor, he's covered all sorts of civil wars. He's an Australian, he's a rugby player. He's tough as nails. But here's an exchange last night I'd like your take on. I'm asking him a question.
HH: Compared to what, Mr. Ware? Compared to Baghdad under Saddam? Are you arguing that Iraqis are worse off today than they were four years ago?
Anderson Cooper: Michael Ware, do you want to respond?
MW: Yeah, well I think if you ask a lot of Iraqis, I think you'll be surprised by what the answer is. A whole lot of them say what? This is democracy? The joke is you call this liberation. And okay, let's look at the context, as you suggest. Let's look at the even bigger picture. What is the bigger picture? Who's winning from this war? Who is benefitting right now? Well, the main winners so far are al Qaeda, which is stronger than it was before the invasion. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was a nobody. Now he's the superstar of international jihad. And Iran...Iran essentially has a proxy government in place, a very, very friendly government. Its sphere of influence has expanded, and any U.S. diplomat or senior military intelligence commander here will tell you that. So that's the big picture. Where is that being reported?
HH: Christopher Hitchens, does that reflect the mindset that you're talking about?
CH: In part it does, because it's very passive. In other words, you read all the time, people say, you could look at any of your today's newspapers and notice it, and say well, there's a civil war atmosphere, as if that was a criticism of the Bush administration, instead of the people like Zarqawi, who have been announcing for two years now that it's their plan to create a sectarian civil war by destroying the other side's Mosques in an unbelievable piece of facistic blasphemy. People look at you when they read about atrocities is if it's your fault for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This is simply illogical. It's a non sequitur. And you'll note the slight tone of hysteria and the nervousness, I think, in the over-assertive way that your man was just talking now.
HH: Yes, I did notice that.
CH: By the way, since he mentions Mr. Zarqawi, about whom I know a lot, Mr. Zarqawi was a very senior member of the bin Laden family. He probably had, and in my opinion, probably always did have the ambition to outdo Mr. bin Laden, and to become himself the great sheikh and a great leader. But he was a very important member of that gang in Afghanistan already, long before. And of course, if we hadn't gone to Afghanistan, if we'd left it in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda, he'd still be there. He wouldn't be in Iraq, so of course your man is correct again in saying we've made him worse. But what...has he thought of the logic of what he's saying? Of course Zarqawi would still be in Afghanistan if we left him alone.
HH: The logic of...
CH: I mean the whole thing is based on this unbelievably masochistic passivity, and which leads to people making elementary logical mistakes they wouldn't otherwise make, because they wouldn't otherwise be blinded by their predjudice.
HH: Last week, when we talked about Yugoslavia and the descent into genocide that Milosevic led, it was because Yugoslavia descended into civil war, and the slaughter became too high, that we had to go in. In Rwanda, the great shame is that in that civil war, the West did not intervene. Now it strikes me as exceedingly odd that on the left, there are voices who wish us to withdraw from Iraq because of the threat of civil war. Does that add up?
CH: Of course, if we had gone into Rwanda when we could have done, when we were warned, and when the United Nations commanders there were begging just for a slight increase in force that would have held off, or at least blunted the original genocidal attack, of course there would have had to be a moment where American soldiers fired on the people trying to commit genocide. It would have happened, and we would have been accused of starting a civil war in Rwanda if that had happened. And you know by who, as well.
HH: Right.
CH: Or we're just really glad...or even though we keep complaining and say oh, we're so sorry we did nothing, secretly we're relieved we didn't ever have to expose ourselves to the messy responsibility. By the way, there's a question from your last...I'm sorry, Michael Ware was it?
HH: Yes.
CH: ...that I didn't answer. I didn't want anyone to think I was ducking it. On the question of Iran's influence in Iraq?
HH: Yes.
CH: There's no doubt about it. I mean, we've known for some time. It was a risk we ran from the beginning, that anything you do to reduce the power of any Iraqi government...this is the reason why we tried to split the difference during the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq. And by the way, the other way around, as when Carter encouraged Saddam to attack Iran, risks the possibility of enhancing the other side. That's almost zero sum, but as against that, which is a serious problem, has taken a very nasty form in Iraq. We can also say that among Iranians, millions of Iranians, there's a great deal of pro-American influence that has been spread, and I don't know a single Iranian who isn't glad that Saddam Hussein was removed, and doesn't think that in the longer run, this movement that's been unleashed in the region will be at the expense of the mullahs, in spite of any short-term gains. I can't promise that that's true, but I can promise that it's a real possibility.
HH: Christopher Hitchens, just objectively stepping back, is Iraq better off today than it was four years ago, given the documents we are now seeing, given what Robert Kaplan called the unbelievably Stalinist nature of Hussein's regime, and the mad as hatter sons who were in line and would never have given it up.
CH: Yes.
HH: What do you think?
CH: Oh, on that decision, there's only one way to argue it. It's not only a great deal better off than it was four years ago, but it's enormously better off than it would have been if it had been left to rot and crash under this mad despotism, which bear in mind, stayed in power by using the tactics of divided rule, and importing jihadists like Zarqawi, and the Fedayeen Saddam, who were going to be the suppressor regime. I mean, if you think it's bad now, just try and imagine what it would have been like if it had been left alone. And on that, I don't think there's any disput at all. And by the way, I've made this point in countless arguments with so-called anti-war people, many of whom are actually pro-war, but on the other side, in public and in print and on television and on radio and in universities. I've never had any of them reply to my point there.
HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as...in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.
HH: Do you believe that there are leaders in the Democratic Party in Congress who also belong to that caucus?
CH: No, I can't say that I do think that. I mean, maybe Cynthia McKinney, who is not exactly a leader. She seems sometimes to talk in a sort of MoveOn.org manner, but no, I think that we're far from that in this case. I think what you have there is again, a sort of fatalism, the feeling that if you can say a war is unwinnable, you've also said it's wrong. In other words, that you would desert the side you were on if you thought things were going badly. That's a moral degeneracy of a different kind.
HH: And is that so pervasive as to be irreversible, as we've got about 45 seconds left, in the Democratic Party?
CH: Yes, I believe so. I don't need 45 seconds to say that.
HH: Well then, in 30 seconds, if the Democratic Party returns to power in this country, you get thirty seconds now, what happens?
CH: I'll just tell you something a very senior person at a well-known network. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I just can't tell you who he is or which network. I don't have the right to do it. But you'll have to believe me, okay?
HH: Okay.
CH: He called me the other day. This is not a guy who's in any way a conservative, and said you know, we've known each other for a bit. He said you know, I'm beginning to think you must be right, because it really worries me what we're doing, when we are giving the other side the impression that all they need to do is hang on until the end of this administration. Do people know what they're doing when they're doing this? One doesn't have to make any allegation of disloyalty, but just...if it worries him, as it really does, I think it should worry other people, too, and it certainly worries me.
HH: It certainly should. Christopher Hitchens, as always, a pleasure.
HH: Happy to have back to begin today's show Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair columnist, author of many books, including a recent bio of Thomas Jefferson. And a great time to talk to you, Christopher Hitchens, as this is the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. There have been a lot of lookbacks, including a couple of which I participated that have focused on the media's role in reporting from Iraq. I'm wondering, generally, do you think the media is doing a good job in conveying both the stakes and the situation on the ground in Iraq?
CH: Not really, I don't. I mean, I can think of some outstanding reporters who've done their very best to cover it. Michael Gordon's new book, for example, I think is very good. And John Burns from the New York Times is outstanding, much better than his newspaper, when he writes there, that's to say. It's just that I've been doing this business for a long time. I've been a journalist for most of my life, and it must be nearly 40 years now, and I know a press herd mentality when I see one. I really do. And sometimes, I approve. I mean, I remember when I was in Bosnia, all of the press was hostile to Milosevic in one way or another, and as it happened, I thought that was the right bias to have. But I did realize it was a bias. And when I've been in the company of people covering Iraq, I notice this...another herd mentality, and it's been there since before the war, and it's placed a bet on quagmire at best.
HH: Yeah, I tried to make an argument last night...
CH: And defeat at worst. And in some ways, it doesn't want its prediction to be falsified. I won't say any more than that. It's not a conspiracy, but it's definitely a mindset.
HH: That's my point. Last night on CNN, I was debating this with Michael Ware from Time Magazine. Do you know him, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: I don't, but I was on CNN with Michael Weiskopf of Time Magazine a few nights ago, who said that the only person capable of unifying Iraq was Saddam Hussein, and I thought good grief. We've come this far to hear that?
HH: That's...this is exactly...I want to play you a little bit. Michael Ware's a very respected war correspondent. He's covered Timor, he's covered all sorts of civil wars. He's an Australian, he's a rugby player. He's tough as nails. But here's an exchange last night I'd like your take on. I'm asking him a question.
HH: Compared to what, Mr. Ware? Compared to Baghdad under Saddam? Are you arguing that Iraqis are worse off today than they were four years ago?
Anderson Cooper: Michael Ware, do you want to respond?
MW: Yeah, well I think if you ask a lot of Iraqis, I think you'll be surprised by what the answer is. A whole lot of them say what? This is democracy? The joke is you call this liberation. And okay, let's look at the context, as you suggest. Let's look at the even bigger picture. What is the bigger picture? Who's winning from this war? Who is benefitting right now? Well, the main winners so far are al Qaeda, which is stronger than it was before the invasion. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was a nobody. Now he's the superstar of international jihad. And Iran...Iran essentially has a proxy government in place, a very, very friendly government. Its sphere of influence has expanded, and any U.S. diplomat or senior military intelligence commander here will tell you that. So that's the big picture. Where is that being reported?
HH: Christopher Hitchens, does that reflect the mindset that you're talking about?
CH: In part it does, because it's very passive. In other words, you read all the time, people say, you could look at any of your today's newspapers and notice it, and say well, there's a civil war atmosphere, as if that was a criticism of the Bush administration, instead of the people like Zarqawi, who have been announcing for two years now that it's their plan to create a sectarian civil war by destroying the other side's Mosques in an unbelievable piece of facistic blasphemy. People look at you when they read about atrocities is if it's your fault for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This is simply illogical. It's a non sequitur. And you'll note the slight tone of hysteria and the nervousness, I think, in the over-assertive way that your man was just talking now.
HH: Yes, I did notice that.
CH: By the way, since he mentions Mr. Zarqawi, about whom I know a lot, Mr. Zarqawi was a very senior member of the bin Laden family. He probably had, and in my opinion, probably always did have the ambition to outdo Mr. bin Laden, and to become himself the great sheikh and a great leader. But he was a very important member of that gang in Afghanistan already, long before. And of course, if we hadn't gone to Afghanistan, if we'd left it in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda, he'd still be there. He wouldn't be in Iraq, so of course your man is correct again in saying we've made him worse. But what...has he thought of the logic of what he's saying? Of course Zarqawi would still be in Afghanistan if we left him alone.
HH: The logic of...
CH: I mean the whole thing is based on this unbelievably masochistic passivity, and which leads to people making elementary logical mistakes they wouldn't otherwise make, because they wouldn't otherwise be blinded by their predjudice.
HH: Last week, when we talked about Yugoslavia and the descent into genocide that Milosevic led, it was because Yugoslavia descended into civil war, and the slaughter became too high, that we had to go in. In Rwanda, the great shame is that in that civil war, the West did not intervene. Now it strikes me as exceedingly odd that on the left, there are voices who wish us to withdraw from Iraq because of the threat of civil war. Does that add up?
CH: Of course, if we had gone into Rwanda when we could have done, when we were warned, and when the United Nations commanders there were begging just for a slight increase in force that would have held off, or at least blunted the original genocidal attack, of course there would have had to be a moment where American soldiers fired on the people trying to commit genocide. It would have happened, and we would have been accused of starting a civil war in Rwanda if that had happened. And you know by who, as well.
HH: Right.
CH: Or we're just really glad...or even though we keep complaining and say oh, we're so sorry we did nothing, secretly we're relieved we didn't ever have to expose ourselves to the messy responsibility. By the way, there's a question from your last...I'm sorry, Michael Ware was it?
HH: Yes.
CH: ...that I didn't answer. I didn't want anyone to think I was ducking it. On the question of Iran's influence in Iraq?
HH: Yes.
CH: There's no doubt about it. I mean, we've known for some time. It was a risk we ran from the beginning, that anything you do to reduce the power of any Iraqi government...this is the reason why we tried to split the difference during the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq. And by the way, the other way around, as when Carter encouraged Saddam to attack Iran, risks the possibility of enhancing the other side. That's almost zero sum, but as against that, which is a serious problem, has taken a very nasty form in Iraq. We can also say that among Iranians, millions of Iranians, there's a great deal of pro-American influence that has been spread, and I don't know a single Iranian who isn't glad that Saddam Hussein was removed, and doesn't think that in the longer run, this movement that's been unleashed in the region will be at the expense of the mullahs, in spite of any short-term gains. I can't promise that that's true, but I can promise that it's a real possibility.
HH: Christopher Hitchens, just objectively stepping back, is Iraq better off today than it was four years ago, given the documents we are now seeing, given what Robert Kaplan called the unbelievably Stalinist nature of Hussein's regime, and the mad as hatter sons who were in line and would never have given it up.
CH: Yes.
HH: What do you think?
CH: Oh, on that decision, there's only one way to argue it. It's not only a great deal better off than it was four years ago, but it's enormously better off than it would have been if it had been left to rot and crash under this mad despotism, which bear in mind, stayed in power by using the tactics of divided rule, and importing jihadists like Zarqawi, and the Fedayeen Saddam, who were going to be the suppressor regime. I mean, if you think it's bad now, just try and imagine what it would have been like if it had been left alone. And on that, I don't think there's any disput at all. And by the way, I've made this point in countless arguments with so-called anti-war people, many of whom are actually pro-war, but on the other side, in public and in print and on television and on radio and in universities. I've never had any of them reply to my point there.
HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as...in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.
HH: Do you believe that there are leaders in the Democratic Party in Congress who also belong to that caucus?
CH: No, I can't say that I do think that. I mean, maybe Cynthia McKinney, who is not exactly a leader. She seems sometimes to talk in a sort of MoveOn.org manner, but no, I think that we're far from that in this case. I think what you have there is again, a sort of fatalism, the feeling that if you can say a war is unwinnable, you've also said it's wrong. In other words, that you would desert the side you were on if you thought things were going badly. That's a moral degeneracy of a different kind.
HH: And is that so pervasive as to be irreversible, as we've got about 45 seconds left, in the Democratic Party?
CH: Yes, I believe so. I don't need 45 seconds to say that.
HH: Well then, in 30 seconds, if the Democratic Party returns to power in this country, you get thirty seconds now, what happens?
CH: I'll just tell you something a very senior person at a well-known network. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I just can't tell you who he is or which network. I don't have the right to do it. But you'll have to believe me, okay?
HH: Okay.
CH: He called me the other day. This is not a guy who's in any way a conservative, and said you know, we've known each other for a bit. He said you know, I'm beginning to think you must be right, because it really worries me what we're doing, when we are giving the other side the impression that all they need to do is hang on until the end of this administration. Do people know what they're doing when they're doing this? One doesn't have to make any allegation of disloyalty, but just...if it worries him, as it really does, I think it should worry other people, too, and it certainly worries me.
HH: It certainly should. Christopher Hitchens, as always, a pleasure.
