Customer Reviews

A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Christopher Hitchens is generally regarded as one of the finest essayist of our time, a conclusion not hindered by this neat collection of lush essays laying out both the recent history of the Middle East and the reasons for our attack on Iraq. Thomas Friedman explained the situation as well in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Longitudes and Attitudes," and both of these learned men ended up ghost writing the text not produced by the clumsy Bush administration, however Mr. Friedman is a staffer at the New York Times and therefore his work is a tad bland, it doesn't contain the moulinet, the sardonic jabs and parrys that lunge from every page of this Brit Wit. Mr. Hitchens wrote for The Nation for twenty years before coming out on the side of Pres. Bush and his war on terrorism and especially the state sponsor of terrorism Saddam Hussein, a stance, a circumstance that seems to bring out his contempt for the unread left, what he refers to as the "ranting neo-Stalinist and blithering flower children" and has furthered a general identity crisis in the same. It was Mr. Hitchens who coined the term "Islamofascism" to give face to this ubiquitous enemy. His reasoning is contained herein. A mandatory read.

Christopher Hitchens is one of those authors that I do not agree with on everything, but I always enjoy reading what he has to say. He comes across as an author that sticks to what he thinks is right, and doesn't adhere blindly to a particular ideology.

That being said, I think anyone that cares at all about Iraq should give this short little book a chance. He makes quite a few good points that fly in the face of the Left's "no blood for oil" chants and the rest. Hitchens makes the point that we're not starting off with a clean slate in Iraq and just because you disagree with past policy doesn't mean you should automatically condemn what's happening now. What we've done to Iraq in the past under both Republicans and Democrats morally necessitates the need to overthrow Hussein.

I would give this book five stars if it weren't for Hitchens' going back over and over to the UN resolutions Hussein was ignoring. It's true, Hussein was ignoring resolutions, but so was Washington. Clinton kept moving the goalposts unilaterally to suit his policy preferences. The best thing to do would have been to just stick to the resolutions and then let Hussein violate them...which he most likely would have done. Then we would have had a stronger moral argument to make...thanks Clinton. Hitchens ignores this point and his argument is slightly weaker for it.

When reading this book, please try to disengage from any thinking about Bush and his cabinet, regardless of your own partisan leanings. Listen to these arguments with an open mind and I think you'll find they make a lot of sense. Of everything I've read on Iraq and the U.S., this is certainly an interesting read.

This collection is classic Hitchens. Eloquently, convincingly and with wit he makes the case for why neutrality in the battle against fascism is not an option. And in doing so he eviscerates those who thinks that such a truce is possible or --worse -- desirable.

It's a quick read but it should not be missed.

A must read for anyone who has even heard of the Iraq wars.

This booklet is surprisingly dense in detail and provocation of thought. Mr. Hitch is brilliant in his use of language and fact. None can deny that he is on solid ground.

Yet, the writing is unimposing and asks the reader to look kindly, and with passion, upon the suffering of those liberated-no matter what the cost. Read the book and you will see beyond the politics of the war.

PenetratingArmenian
A Self Certified Blogspot Blogger

A very short book that is long on rhetoric. To be fair let me say that on the overall position this author takes on the war is different from mine. The reason I read the book is that I have heard the author speak over the years and found him to be very entertaining with well thought out (if not always to my liking) arguments. I expected a book with the same level of insight. Given that I disagreed with the authors position in support of the US going to war, I found it a bit difficult to judge the arguments with real objectivity. I actually kept getting a bit mad at some of the overstated (in my opinion) comments about what is best for the world and the population of Iraq. I also could not help myself and kept trying to put holes in his arguments and look for any statements that I knew to be in error.

So the overall outcome of the book was that I was somewhat frustrated and somewhat happy with myself for being able to spot a few inconsistencies or arguments that were very one sided and somewhat short of facts. If you agree with the author then you will be very happy with the book. He does do a great job of explaining his position. He is a wonderful wordsmith if not just a bit bitter (about what I do not know). I guess my biggest complaint is that he rushed this one out the door without much new comment except for a brief introduction. I would have liked a bit more effort, at least to bulk the book up to be more then a thin 100 pages.

While the debates continue to rage, the topic of the liberation of Iraq is now primarily consigned to the historical. With Saddam Hussein and his fellow ruling sadists now thankfully departed, and the apocalyptic scenarios depicted by the Left failing to materialise, one might think that the time is right to reflect on statements that were made in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and judge their accuracy with the value of hindsight.

After peddling lies and apologetics for a fascist regime, it is no surprise that the Left refuses to do this, either denying their previous claims, or making up new lies in defence. Christopher Hitchens, however, anticipated this moment back in 2003, and wrote a series of polemical justifications for the liberation in 'Slate' magazine. `A Long Short War' is the collection of these articles, and those who firmly resisted the slogans and cheap jibes of the `Stop the War' crowd will be able to read with a sense of satisfaction. Laying out the moral and necessary basis for the war, the articles contained are short, to the point and filled with intellectual contempt at his former comrades-turned-defenders of status-quo tyranny. One can tell the words were typed in the months leading to war, as emotion spills onto the pages, and no punches are pulled in lambasting the nonsense that was espoused by apparently rational individuals in a case of society's morals suddenly being inverted.

`A Long Short War' is not all that Hitchens could have contributed to this topic. It would have been nice to have seen a fresh book on the shelves devoted to the case for the war, rather than simply 'making-do' with a collection of articles. And while the articles are convincing, they do lack in detail. However, for what it is, it succeeds extremely well. While many on the Left are already attempting to rewrite history to cover for their failed prediction and moral vacuity, Hitchens has preserved the original arguments he gave in support of the war and has shown that they do stand up with the value of hindsight.

Christopher Hitchens lays out the case for the liberation of Iraq as a moral imperative, on behalf of its own citizens as much as for the rest of the world, who were similarly terrorized by Saddam Hussein.

Most of the book takes the form of a series of articles penned by Mr. Hitchens throughout the run-up to the invasion through to its immediate aftermath. Particularly interesting are Hitchens's accounts of visiting Iraq both before and after the invasion, as much as a friend to its people as an investigative reporter.

On every side he levels his frank and insightful assessment of the actors involved, which is not at all flattering in cases such as Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Colin Powell, and Dubya himself - Hitchens is no cheerleader for the White House. But among Hitchens's charms is that he is not one of the great mass of partisan critics with a ready slander for anyone in his sights. Paul Wolfowitz and Gerhard Schroeder, each in his own way, both emerge from Hitchens's close inspection as fairly heroic figures.

On the other hand, the most scathing indictments are reserved for those knee-jerk protesters and critics who equated the overthrow of our generation's Stalin with a war of aggression. Hitchens might be applauded for how reserved he reviews the telling account of the "human shields" who had a sudden change of heart after actually experiencing for just a few days the conditions in Iraq that its people have endured for decades.

And there is Hitchens's great lament, as implied in the title: what a terrible decision it was not to carry out this completion of the Iraqi war in 1991, when instead we inexplicably quit an ideal opportunity to end the despotism. That delay led quickly to the abandonment and massive defeat of the internal Iraqi dissenters who had looked to us for support, reminiscent of our similar let-down of the anti-Castro Cubans thirty years earlier; and it led to the onset of far worse poverty and oppression of the entire Iraqi populace over the past twelve years than they had experienced under the pre-Kuwait Saddam. The outlandish costs now being sought for reconstruction are also due in large part to the steady twelve year collapse of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure.

With controversy continuing on how finally to create an Iraq that is free and prosperous, it is invaluable to understand the mistakes made in the past. Amid so much of the same few simple-minded lines of rhetoric dominating public discourse, the piercing observations and original insights of Christopher Hitchens, wrapped in eloquent and eminently readable use of language, are a most welcome window on that understanding.