A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq [Paperback]

Christopher Hitchens (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 112 pages
• Publisher: Plume (June 3, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0452284988
• ISBN-13: 978-0452284982
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.3 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (36 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #604,370 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was the author of Letters to a Young Contrarian, and the bestseller No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family. A regular contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic Monthly and Slate, Hitchens also wrote for The Weekly Standard, The National Review, and The Independent, and appeared on The Daily Show, Charlie Rose, The Chris Matthew's Show, Real Time with Bill Maher, and C-Span's Washington Journal. He was named one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

92 of 104 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Good rhetorical argument, but sketchy on detail., July 7, 2004

By 

Kevin Currie-Knight "Education Grad Student" (Newark, Delaware) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq (Paperback)

I am one who has always been critical of our reasons for going into Iraq and, further, how we've conducted the Iraq 'war.' But I am equally uncomfortable when around my anti-war friends who, to me, always seem to oversimplify the issue by suggesting absuridities like (a) we should have given Iraq more time (as the UN has for 10 years, to no appreciable avail); (b) Saddam Hussein posed little threat to the international community (ignoring that even Clinton knew this wasn't true); or worst of all (c) that the war in Iraq will encourage Islamic anti-americanism even more (as if this wouldn't have happened anyway).

So as an opposer of the Iraq war, I appreciate reading books like Hitchens' that at very least gives some meaty considerations of the 'pro-Iraq-war' type. I agree with other reviewers that as the book is a short collection of short essays, Hitchens does more by way of rhetoric than analysis. I also agree that the lack of citations was a problem. But I vehemently disagree with those who feel that Hitchens does not know what he is talking about, that he simply has a 'neo-con' bias (Hitchens has always been and continues to be on the far left), or that his arguments are not eye-opening or persuasive.

Hitchens focuses on two things in particular: rebutting those overly simplistic slogans of what he calls (yes, a bit unfairly) the 'peaceniks'; and ruminating on Hussein's human rights violations and the overly-bravado way he openly (arrogantly) defies UN stipulations. He even goes so far as to point out (what we all kind of thought, but tried to suppress) that an international clash with Saddam was something of an inevitability. Was it best now or later? Since Hitchens doesn't put much faith in the UN, whose known Hussein was a problem, but dragged its feat for ten years, Hitchens answers that now is better than later in dealing with Saddam.

The 'peaceniks' bear much of the brunt of Hitchens' wrath. Slogans like "no war for oil" and "But Hussein wasn't the worst of the bad guys," really get Hitchens' juice flowing. On the first, Hitchens asks us whether or not what the peaceniks are suggesting is to leave Iraq's oil resources in the hands of the self-same man who showed no hesitation in burning Kuwait's oil fields in the process of 'surrendering' them back to Kuwait? Is such a man not a huge danger to Iraq's oil fields as well? AS to whether we should treat Hussein with kids gloves simply because he is not the 'worst of the bad guys' here is Hitchens himself:

"Did the people who said this have any idea what they were saying? How many bad guys could they name who had violated the Genocide Convention on their own territory, invaded two neighboring states, openly financed suicide bombing, sought and nearly acquired numclear capacity and were within easy reach of 9 percent of the world's energy reserves...A man that not only murdered his mildest critics but has also murdered members of his own government...[?]" [p.9]

This should at very least whet people's appetite to learn more. And despite the lack of citations or extended essays, a book like this should at very least be read by the war's critics (myself included, of course) to remind them that, if anything, arguments - good arguments - can be made on all sides. Reading this book confirmed much of what I've long suspected. Yes, I am still a critic of the war, but despite what all too many people say, neither 'side' on this issue seems to have a so desperately wanted monopoly on the truth.

85 of 104 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The case Bush should have made, August 1, 2003

By 

Andrew S. Rogers (Stamford, Connecticut) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq (Paperback)

While he'd never be mistaken for a Bush sympathizer, Christopher Hitchens in this collection of essays articulates the case for the liberation of Iraq far more eloquently, effectively -- and with an eye for what's really important -- than anyone in the Bush Administration seems able to, even at this late date. While I don't agree with everything in this book, I have a great deal of respect for Hitchens' articulate rationality. It's a refreshing change from both the hysteric emotionalism and nitwit slogans of much of the antiwar crowd, and the chest-thumping militarism of a great deal of the pro-war element.

Especially useful ... or would be if anyone besides Hitchens, me, and the specter of George Orwell still cared about precision and clarity in the language ... is the author's dissection of many of the key terms in this debate, including "terrorism," "multi-" versus "bi-" in lateralism and partisanship, "regime change," "imperialism," and much more. The article titled "'Cowboy' -- Bush challenged by bovines" did, I think, a better job of identifying the political context of President Bush's "Texanness" and its impact on his actions in office than Michael Lind did in all 224 pages of his book "Made in Texas."

In our modern democratic culture, of course, rational thought actually counts for very little -- not when shallow slogans like "No blood for oil!" are considered the last word in persuasive arguments (the author gives that one the deconstruction it deserves too). But for those who do value intelligent political debate, or just simple intellectual honesty, Hitchens' are the pro-war arguments that need to be answered.

25 of 31 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Hooray for Hitchens!, August 21, 2005

By 

Pieter "Toypom" (Johannesburg) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq (Paperback)

This gripping series of essays was written during 2002 and 2003 for the online magazine Slate. In the author's words, the intention was that of testing short-term analyses against longer term ones, whilst subjecting long-term convictions to shorter-term challenges. The essays are presented unchanged; only a short preface, an introduction and an epilogue have been added.

In the introduction, Hitchens sets out his convictions whilst pointing out the contradictory and sometimes completely ridiculous arguments of the anti-war Left and isolationist Right. The witty way he demolishes the facile slogans of the so-called peaceniks often makes the reader laugh out loud. Amongst other subjects, he thoroughly and comprehensively debunks the slur that an Israeli or Zionist lobby was behind the war. Identifying the Antisemitic innuendo and imagery employed in these arguments, Hitchens points out that the most insistent lobbyists for the new Iraq policy have been Iraqis - Muslim and Christian, Arab and Kurdish, devout and secular.

The first essay: Machiavelli in Mesopotamia, of November 7, 2002, examines the "case against the case against regime change". The one titled Armchair General tackles the idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war, whilst in Terrorism, Hitchens explores the definition of the term. He refers to Claude Chabrol's film Nada that demonstrates the promiscuous cruelty of nihilistic terrorists. Hitchens defines terrorism as the tactic of demanding the impossible at gunpoint.

One of the most perceptive and thought-provoking essays is called Anti-Americanism, an investigation of the nature and history of this phenomenon on the Left and Right in Europe. Further thoughts cover some prominent domestic examples and observations on European critics like Le Pen and Haider. Hitchens suggests that a more apt term for the foreign strain would be Anti-Modernism or Anti-Cosmopolitanism and for the US version, Native Masochism. It is descriptive, but I prefer the word Paleotard that has emerged in the blogosphere after the publication of this book.

The essay titled Evil brilliantly explores the meaning of the word from all angles. Despite the sneering of leftist intellectuals he argues persuasively that there is such a thing. Hitchens describes it as behavior that is simultaneously sadistic and self-destructive. In the trenchant piece Chew On This, he discusses Saddam's crimes, Al-Qaeda's massacres, Kurdish freedom, oil that is worth fighting for and a couple of other matters the so-called anti-war activists ignore in their ignorant obscurantism. Hitchens nails it time and again, expertly exposing the mendacious spin and the juvenile sloganeering to identify the essence, causes and consequences of the issues.

My personal favorite is called The Rat That Roared, an amusing essay on France, the French, Chirac and De Gaulle. It concludes with this arresting description of Chirac: " ... a vain and posturing and venal man ... a balding Joan of Arc in drag. This is the case of the rat that tried to roar." The following one: Inspecting Inspections is also outstanding, exposing the ridiculous farce of the United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. In the article Not Talking Turkey, Hitchens argues that the USA is much better off without unreliable allies like Turkey.

Insight follows insight, as the author once again excels in puncturing the hollow and misleading arguments of Christians who were against the removal of Saddam, giving examples of the Vatican's idiotic and transparently one-dimensional pronouncements and the opinions of the propagandist Jimmy Carter. The grinning peanut is responsible for much of the mess in the Middle East but he just cannot cease from interfering. When not waging a propaganda war against Israel through his now discredited book of half-truths, distortions, calculated omissions, downright lies and gross inaccuracies and a provocatively biased title, he's hugging Hamas terrorists and ignoring the plight of the people of Sderot who have been braving a rain of rockets from Gaza for years.

People who preferred Saddam Hussein to oil are scrutinized in the essay Oleaginous where Hitchens dissects some contradictory positions taken by the peaceniks, briefly covers the UN Oil-for-Food scam that obscenely enriched members and clients - mostly French and Russian - of Saddam's regime while the people starved. He explains the absurdity of the puerile Blood-for-Oil accusation in the historical context of the Iran-Iraq War and Saudi interests rooted in distrust of Iran. Most of those UN bureaucrats, European politicians, American peaceniks and international businessmen opposed the liberation of Iraq because they didn't want to forfeit Saddam's bribes. They were the exact opposite of noble pursuers of peace: oily (scuse the pun), sleazy, unprincipled, greedy and unconscionable rogues in the pay of a megalomaniacal sadist.

The Epilogue: After The Fall, deals with the toppling of the dictator's statue, the Gulf War of 1991 and its aftermath and the personal experiences and impressions of the author after the 2003 liberation. He considers the 12 years between the two wars as an era eaten by locusts, rubbishing the nonsense and fabricated fears parroted by opponents of the war: the apocalyptic worst case scenarios, the mythical Arab street and the fatuous rhetoric of ideologues & propagandists like Scott Ritter and Robert Fisk.

Hitchens covers every angle of the Iraq War in its proper historical perspective, also criticizing the mistakes and policies of the USA and other Western powers. The platform the book provides to ordinary Iraqis adds a welcome additional dimension of insight. I admire Hitchens' intellectual integrity, his detailed knowledge of history and his captivating style. This little classic offers ample evidence of Hitchens at his best, putting principles above politics and pulling to pieces a web of deception, disinformation and distortion with truth as his weapon. I also recommend A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman. The Iraq War, the special relationship between the UK and USA and the future of our dangerous world where threats to the West are multiplying again are also intelligently treated by William Shawcross in his book Allies.