A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq Paperback – June 3, 2003

I really enjoyed the book and the dissenting opinion of the war.

great

Brilliant. We miss the Hitch.

Christopher Hitchens is a writer I agree with in the majority of cases. I do not agree, however, with his support of the Iraqi War. I still don't agree with Christopher, even after reading this book, but for anyone who has any interest in another point of view, this book is worth picking up.

Naturally Christopher Hitchens talks about Iraq in ways that cuts through everyone else's double talk and excuses. Everything you need to know about Iraq is in this small 100 page book, although he mentions other necessary books for understanding Iraq. At the same time, he cuts down all the excuse makers and moral equivalence puzzlers without hesitation. After this book was written, it was over for the anti-war crowd.

I realize "A Long Short War" is now a dated book that doesn't need one more review, still...

Having grown tired of hearing how I should read "A Long Short War" because ot explains why the war in Iraq is proper and how the book "is only about 100 pages", I decided I'd finally read it, hence the title of this review.

This book is not really about the War in Iraq! It says so in the title, "The Postponed Liberation of Iraq". It is about how Saddam Hussein is a bad man who should never have been in power and that the world would be a better place if he were unable to practice his particular kind of rule. As far as I can tell, there are not many debating whether Hussein was a bad man in the end, even among those who believe he wasn't one in the beginning.

There is a tacit assumption in "A Long Short War" of the end justifying the means. Hitchens felt Hussein should be out of power, so he sees the war as a good thing. However, he does not deal seriously with the issue that the simple overthrow of Hussein is not the reason the Congress or American people were given for embarking on the war in Iraq. No WMD? Well, Hussein was trying to make them (in Hitchens' view) and there's no question (for Hitchens) that Hussein would have been successful if given enough time. Still, Hussein's having the time and inclination to make WMD was not the reason for US involvement. It was the presence of WMD, which many now argue was known to be false at the time. This is a point that Hitchens does not take up.

In essence, I found "A Long Short War" to be a long short read. I kept waiting for serious discussions, which never came, of whether US entry into Iraq was justified for the reasons that the US supposedly entered. It is a very weak book that is strong on reasons why Saddam Hussein is/was a bad man. Unable to explain how Congress and the public were not misled into supporting US entry into Iraq, Hitchens merely repeats again and again how bad a man Hussein is/was as though this makes the question irrelevant. Hitchens is clearly an intelligent man who is up on his facts. It is easy to see how he and those who quote him can create a very powerful smoke screen, but in the end that's all it is--smoke. His silence on the *way* the US entered Irag is, to borrow from an old but apt cliche, deafening.

This is a wonderful book for everyone still entranced by the US role in the Iraqi civil war, and for those curious about the fantasies of the Bush administration that launched his crusade against Islam.

Hitchens is a crafty, skilled, invidious flack for the neocon minority that regards war as the solution for any problem produced by the collision of two or more ideas. He prides himself as a contrarian, an ironic self-title that mocks the opposition of those who recognize the civil war in Iraq as Bush's greatest folly. The book is an astute selection of 'Slate' online columns written prior to the invasion, his "facts" are a first-class example of what is known in the news business as "press release journalism".

As such, it is a concise summary of the folly -- some would say wisdom -- that inveigled Americans into a "perfect" war that avoids the horrendous toll of the Vietnam. But, it's just enough to maintain constant uncertainty, unease and doubts which Bush uses adroitly "to avoid changing horses (i.e. commander-in-chief') in midstream" but not enough to bring about his own defeat. Few wars are so good they last indefinitely without fatal results; but, Hitchens proves once and for all that it's possible to fool enough of the people enough of the time to win enough of the votes. The neocons couldn't be happier, more smug, more self-satisfied or more pleased with Hitchens.

Perhaps the most telling metaphor for the book is the cover photo showing US forces pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein; to this day, Americans are still expected to do everything for the Iraqis. It's why more than 3,000 US civilians and military personnel have died since the "Mission Accomplished" boast. It shows why newspapers are still far more trustworthy than hired flacks. At least Colin Powell had the decency to admit he was duped; Hitchens has a habit of hiding from his mistakes, which may be why he hasn't come up with a sequel about "peace, prosperity and progress in the Garden of Eden (Iraq)".

Hitchens is a usually arrogant contrarian with a distaste for most elements of American-style democratic chaos; but, he can also be a fawning lap-dog for utterly ridiculous ideas as this book illustrates. Anyone who loves the American role in Iraq's civil war will find it is a useful and inspiring gospel; those who oppose folly will appreciate the ease with which some people can be thrown, tied and branded.

Today it's perhaps even more significant than in 2003, when Hitchens bought hook, line and sinker into the "let's have a nice little war" scenario. America now has its "long short war". Now, ominously, a similar drumbeat is starting faintly for a war against Iran; perhaps Hitchens will volunteer again to be a spokesman for why Americans should die in another MidEast land.

All in all, a wonderful book by a brilliant author whose penchant for irrascibility instead of reason results in razzle-dazzle raves for cowboy politics instead of the rational ideas of the Clinton years. Journalism used to reflect the idea, "Question everything: If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Hitchens has turned it around to mean, "Accept everything, if Bush says "war" just reply "Ready, aye, ready!"

When the USA invaded Iraq, taking my own country with them (Australia), I was against it. I saw it as a distraction, and sideline and an error. I was wrong.

Hitchens puts together a very strong argument for the initial invasion. That Saddam was clearly an evil man, the last of the petty fuhrers, an unstable centre in a middle east where Afghanistan was being reintegrated into the modern world.

It was only during The Surge that I started to understand the reasons why Saddam had to fall. Given the historical errors that had been made up to then it was a dramatic conversion based, largely, on this book and related information.

After the surge Al-Qaeda was defeated. Iraq was relatively peaceful and governed, even if poorly. We had arrived at a point where the future middle east could be build free of a fascistic, bloodthirsty distraction. Sadly, the gains of the surge were lost once the USA abandoned Iraq and the rest is history.