Hitchens wonders, does the left want to lose in Iraq?
posted at 11:25 am on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
My good man, perish the thought.
[I]t nonetheless does begin to look as if Iraqis may in fact have started to recover command over their own destiny, and also as if America may have helped them to do so. The surge is only a part of this story. Quite obviously, if the Sunnis of Anbar Province had not of their own volition turned on the hideous forces of al-Qaida, then no amount of extra troops could have made the difference. But some combination of the two things appears to have altered the chemistry, and not just in that province, and all the reporters and soldiers I can get hold of (who include some direly skeptical people in both categories) seem agreed on one thing: The forces of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stink in the nostrils of the Arab world, and have been—here I borrow some words of Thomas Paine—”in point of generalship … outwitted, and in point of fortitude outdone.” Bin Ladenism in Iraq has been dealt a stinging defeat. Surely this is something to celebrate…
I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn’t pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.
You can’t have a Teachable Moment about the perils of imperialism and American hubris unless the facts cooperate. Further to which, see this eyebrow-raiser from AFP, which has itself taken a decidedly neocon bent of late.
Update: The question Hitch should have asked is why the left might still want to lose now when the facts have cooperated with them for the past four years. Their fear seems to be that success in Iraq might make adventurism fashionable for foreign policy. If so, that’s absurd; America’s lost too much blood and treasure in Iraq, and Bush has retreated too far from his democracy exportation plan, to make neoconservatism palatable going forward, especially vis-a-vis countries like Iran and Pakistan that would be much tougher nuts to crack than even Iraq was. Which is to say, why not root for victory at this point? The left has won the foreign policy debate. Why not hope America wins the war too?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Here here. Looks like Harry “This War is Lost” Reid won’t be getting a pass from Hitch any time soon.
Vizzini on November 19, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Why are you still quoting that psycho AP?
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Is Hitchens wrong?
amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Why assume that the dems are pushing the “defunding of the WAr” bill to end the war ?
They are pushing it because they know it will be vetoed and also to placate their nutroots. They wont give them impeachment so they make the next best offer.
Every single democrat has made it clear (Well kucinich excepted) that US troops will stay in the region. And none are against pulling out of Afganistan.
This has turned into a circus of chirades. Dems want to war to go on to give them a issue to get the american people on their side. If we start winning and violence really dies down then look for the Impeachment movement to take a hugh upswing.
The WOT has never been nothing more than issue the dems have used to get and keep power
William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 11:34 AM
He has to wonder about this?
Geez, I wonder if typical 8-year old kids like ice cream. Hmmm, tough one.
thirteen28 on November 19, 2007 at 11:34 AM
No. Hitler isn’t always wrong either but I still wouldn’t quote him .
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I’d hardly compare Hitchens to Hitler.
amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:40 AM
That’s what I was thinking, too. It’s like “duh.”
Bob's Kid on November 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Where has he been hiding for the past 4 years while the dumbocrats push for USA defeat in Iraq?
Wade on November 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Hitch is such an intellect – and one of the best writers of my generation – prolific is a word that falls short with Hitch.
You don’t have to agree with him – to love his work.
I am a Hitch addict – if he writes it – I will read it.
jake-the-goose on November 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I think that’s what you meant. I’m not so sure Iraq is “cracked” yet. If we withdraw too soon the bad guys will be back in force. We probably need a presents in Iraq for the next 20 years…. or more.
Maxx on November 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
I am surprised that anyone, even liberals, might doubt this thesis.
Clark1 on November 19, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I don’t question that hypothesis at all, but I do think it’s worth breaking down further.
There’s the Democrat left who want Bush to lose in Iraq. Harry Reid would applaud if President Clinton pushed the Nuke It button in January 2008.
Then there’s the Blame America First left who want America to lose in Iraq, which would help to appease the old skool communist left, who would see America’s loss as capitalism/modernization losing in Iraq.
What’s most pathetic is none of these groups is even invested in the Iraqi people or the jihadists, who are just the next inconvenience once Bush/America is out of the way.
saint kansas on November 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM
You’re right, Hitler actually made his psychotic fantasies reality so he gets credit for ability and skill while Hitch has no real power and hopefully never will.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I don’t love the work of someone who wants to kill me, and I agree with the stuff Allah usually posts from him.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I think you are assigning the wrong attributes to the left. The liberal wing of the left side of the political spectrum is anti- Bush, anti-war. They are for anything that makes Bush look bad. Along with the MSM. Is it any wonder that violence coming down in Iraq is due to anything but the surge? That goal is too discredit Bush, attack all things conservative. The left does not have a foreign policy agenda.
The anti-neocons are the paleocons. Pat Buchanan, certain Ron Paul supporters, other Libertarians, etc. Their goal is to discredit neoconservative foreign policy, not the liberal left.
Theworldisnotenough on November 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Maybe it’s because, he is one of the greatest intellects of our time.
Also many of the articles he writes are for the educating the left.
Hitch has critics on the left and right just like Penn & Teller.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Because “Bush’s America” must be resoundingly punished and humiliated. Without that, the neocons might be able to argue that there may be some tiny kernel of value to their imperialistic adventurism. Only when the peace-loving, internationalist Dems have spent the next decade or so profoundly apologizing for Americas ills from a point of weakness and defeat can national sovereignty be melted into “world consensus”.
“Winning” is so 20th century nation-state.
eeyore on November 19, 2007 at 12:00 PM
No he isn’t. He’s an otherwise typical liberal shill with the added negative trait of wanting to kill Conservative Christians who happens to be for the war in Iraq. I have yet to see anything particularly profound coming out of his mouth, although for some bizarre reason people seem to walk all over each other to praise him when he says some pro war pearl of wisdom that everybody on the right believes already. Saying what we already knew on one subject doesn’t make him smart, he’s still wrong about everything else. Famous atheist made pro war comment. Famous atheist made pro war comment. Hitchens want a cracker. Baaawk.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Hitch is such an intellect – and one of the best writers of my generation
Love The Hitch.
Not to nitpick, but I think it’s such a crock to call them “anti-war.” They’re all for war as long as Bush/America is losing. How many wars are going on around the world at one time, and yet no one picks up a sign until Bush/America gets involved.
saint kansas on November 19, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Does one have to be “pro war” to weigh whether winning is “good” against this foe?
subbottomfeeder on November 19, 2007 at 12:09 PM
they aren’t anti-war, they are just on the other side of the conflict.
jp on November 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
What kinda stupid question is that? Of course they want us to lose the war, that would make Bush look bad and then they can say “Told ya so” ’cause that’s more important then the safety and security of our nation and our families.
Tony737 on November 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM
He quotes Mr. (Dr.?) Hitchens because he is both bright and well spoken and well reasoned. You may or may not agree with what he says, but you can not argue that he has not put a lot of thought into it.
The only thing I ask of anyone is that they put thought into their arguments. I don’t mind disagreeing and I don’t think less of anyone I might disagree with. The thing I do dislike is when people take poor positions and maintain them in the face of facts. This is what Mr. (Dr.?) Hitchens pointed out in this article. The Democrats are not reasoning their positions. They are blindly following knee jerk partisan lines.
I wish more people considered issues as much as Mr. (Dr.?) Hitchens. The world would be a better place.
ThackerAgency on November 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Seriously?
No … seriously?
Professor Blather on November 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Man, I don’t think he wants to kill conservative Christians whom happen to be for the war.
I’ve even heard him say he is a “Protestant Atheist”. I have also heard him say numerous times that he cannot prove there is no God. ( like at the beginning of his debate with Dinesh D Souza.)
I know he used to be a Trotskyite , a transgression of youthful idealism, but I think he is come over to our side.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I don’t think so. But it wouldn’t be seemly to win if the right gets all the credit.
Lawrence on November 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I didn’t say he wants to kill conservative Christians who are for the war. I said he wants to kill Conservative Christians (period) and (Hitchens) happens to be for the war.
Yeah, and I’ve read an interview by him where he indirectly says he wants to kill Conservative Christians so spare me. You don’t “think he wants to kill Conservative Christians” because you don’t really know anything about him. He’s a monster trying to disguise himself as a human being and sometimes the waves of hate and psychosis are so strong that his mask slips and those of us who are ever vigilent can see him for the horror that he truly is:
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 12:30 PM
A foggy, sleepy Monday morning is your only defense for these idiotic comparisons, dude. Comparing Hitchens to Hitler here is no different than the BusHitler crap we sometimes see at DKos and the rest of the fever swamps, so let me be clear: you are an idiot, and your hyperbole is misplaced and makes your point — whatever it may be — irrelevant.
The very notion of me calling someone out for hyperbole ought to give you pause…it is usually my only device.
Hitchens is a fine writer and thinker, and when we disagree I take it as a sure sign to carefully rethink my position. His clarity on the war on terror puts him in a camp with Lieberman, Bush, Cheney, and the stalwarts of the national defense minded conservatives. For this he is excoriated by the left, and for him to come to the point of suggesting that they actively root for the failure of our efforts in Iraq is a stunning accusation, not careless hyperbole.
Bringing out the Hitler comparison only makes you look like a fool who doesn’t understand who Hitler was.
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I have a great deal of respect for Hitchens. Pointing and screaming “Hitler!” at everyone you don’t agree with is a flashing neon advertisement that you have a weak argument and are motivated by fear. This kind of stupidity is expected from the left but to find it here is disappointing.
ronsfi on November 19, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Wow — moderation has tightened up. Was it “crap”, “Hitler” or “idiot” that got me a special review?
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I am tasked with minimizing the waste of millions of dollars of equipment in my Navy Reserve unit as we decommission. By abandoning an opportunity to go on annual training to a tropical paradise next year, I’ve managed to salvage a few hundred thousand dollars in gear. I could save even more, and make sure it is better and more effectively distributed, but the lack of a FY ‘08 military budget prevents me from spending the time needed to do things right. My chain of command supports doing things right, they just can’t pay for it.
The military is right now wasting money trying to fight a war without a budget. This is hurting us today, this will hurt us for a very long time to come. The Left does not care what damage they do to get what they want anymore.
Patrick_Lasswell on November 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM
second this
jp on November 19, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I find his answer…unpersuasive.
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
You’re right, I apologise to Hilter for comparing him with an incompetent nobody like Hitchens. Here’s the real reason why I compare him with Hitler: because he wants to KILL ME:
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/04/christopher_hitchens_god_is_not_great_2.php
See direct quote in my 12:30 post, I don’t feel like posting it again just for some schmuck like you who can’t possibly imagine that someone might have a valid reason for comparing a mass murderer with a mass murderer wannabe.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Thank you PL. We know. We’re trying to fight them politically everyday, and in the voting booth. Thank you for doing what you do! Give ‘em hell.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Didn’t get the memo. Or the global warming consensus memo. Will speak to my mailman.
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I think they have for the time being although, I don’t believe they are correct. The global struggle has just begun however and I predict we will look back at this time as the calm before the storm…
ronsfi on November 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
So, you interpret his position that if Congress were to impose a state religion civil war would be justified as a desire to kill Christians? Jaibones was right, you are just a fool.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 12:48 PM
How dare you speek bad of the “god” of the atheist.
abinitioadinfinitum on November 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
speak, speak, speak,…
abinitioadinfinitum on November 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Read the quote carefully, stupid, ANY ONE OF THOSE ISSUES is just cause (in Hitchens’ dead brain) for civil war and him enjoying it, not just prayer in school. The issues are separated by the word “or”. No wonder so many of you think he speaks well, you have the literacy level of a brick wall.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Oh, so you’re saying you don’t like him.
I see.
There is no one on this Earth that agrees with every thing I think. Thank God for that.
But I tend to concur with Hitch on many things.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That’s a bit of an understatement. I’m saying I don’t like him because he WANTS TO KILL ME. I can’t think of a better ally in the War on Terror than a man who would turn his guns on me the first chance he gets.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:00 PM
He’s got a point. If the government of the US abandons the constitution, game on. Even though we are a nation of Christians, we are not a Christian nation. The distinction is that state religions must destroy freedom. Once the power of the state is harnessed to the demands of the Church, freedom is going to get plowed under.
I am not an atheist, and most atheists I know are prigs; but the assault on atheism requires a kind of intolerance that is inherently destructive. Religion is either tolerant or it is State, but it cannot be both.
Putting it differently, do you really want the IRS in charge of the collection plate? Do you want the something like the ATF in charge of taking church attendance?
Patrick_Lasswell on November 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM
So let’s summarize:
He’s psyco
He’s a typical liberal shill
He’s a mass murderer wanabee
He wants to kill you
He’s a monster trying to disguise himself as a human being
He’s a horror
You are ever vigilant
We’re schmucks with the literacy level of a brick wall
Sounds like someone needs to check his meds, and it ain’t Hitchens.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Well done; no debate required to further discredit you.
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Please read his quote carefully. Banning abortion, to him, is cause for civil war. Most Conservative Christians want abortion banned. It has nothing to do with the constitution (neither does Creationsim). I agree that prayer shouldn’t be mandatory in school. I agree that Creationism shouldn’t be taught (although if teaching Evolution is mandatory, making teaching Creationism mandatory is fair game, and I’m an evolutionist), although that has nothing to do with the Constitution. I’m not sure why you even posted this, I already explained that “theocracy” isn’t the only thing he wants a civil war against, and even if there was, it doesn’t excuse the sadism of claiming he “would take pleasure in it”.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I provided a direct quote where Hitchens unambiguously states he wants to kill Conservative Christians. You defend him. I don’t think medicine is enough to help you.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Thank you for your reasoned counterargument to my providing a direct quote from Hitchens to back up my support. I now bow to you and admit defeat before your unbeatable intellectual juggernaut. Not. Do you want to kill conservative Christians just like Hitchens does too, jaibones? Is that why you’re defending him? You guys are pathetic. I pretty much wiped the floor with all the Hitchens worshippers, but it seems you’d rather call me stupid, pretend you somehow won, or that you don’t have to deal with me rather than admit the obvious: you were wrong.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:13 PM
The only people Hitch wants to kill are Islamic Jihadist.
And as a non-believing “crusader” I too want this.
I support freedom of religion and non-religion.
Any one who does not support this idea set forth in our constitution
Should be immediately deported.
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM
If the Left won, why is Barak Obama campaigning as a Neo-Con?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/11/019047.php
jp on November 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I provided a direct quote by Hitchens that says otherwise. At this point, I can assume one of three things:
1. You’re blind to the obvious truth and nothing I say or do can change what an illogical mind refuses to accept.
2. You know it isn’t true but choose to lie like a Romanian politician in the middle of an election campaign.
3. You have some brilliant argument against the obvious quote that I have yet to think of.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I have figured this out. In order to understand the left, you MUST start with the idea that the USA is evil and anything that weakens or destroys it is a good thing.
Once you accept that, everything the left does makes perfect sense. Think about it.
RobCon on November 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I don’t know? They seem to have world opinion on their side. I don’t see any allies lining up to help bring Democracy to IRAN and SYRIA.
ronsfi on November 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM
No, you didn’t. And no, I didn’t, although I often agree with him and find his writing extremely thought provoking. Your writing on the other hand, I find find to be rather disturbing.
Some new info, according to you now we are also:
We’re Pathetic
We’re Hitchens worshippers
If we don’t agree that he is worse than Hitler, we’re “defending” him, and implicitly want to kill conservative Christians just as he does.
Yes, you are clearly a paragon of reasonable discussion.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Secret reaired – I love Christopher Hitchens, and he has courage, or malkins.
Indeed. And it’s Thanksgiving week. Love this American custom.
Worry not, Mr. Hitchens – it won’t be pardoned. The American populace is gullible only to a point.
Assuming that you meant “foreign policy on Iraq”, and they haven’t won that either. To the question at the end of your quote – because they don’t believe in American nationalism.
They believe in:
- one world
- no more borders and nations
- most decisions to be made at the U.N. and in Brussels
- political correctness
- internationalism
- elitism
- socialism, and not democracy
- fooling the masses, making them dependent so they’ll vote for them, forever – subjugation in my view
To them it is coloquial to wish for America to win anything.
Entelechy on November 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Yes I did. Here it is again (not for your benefit, you’ve obviously decided to back a potential murderer and obvious nutbag to your grave, but for the benefit of people who might not have read the entire thread and think you have some valid point):
In this section Hitchens outlines the things that the Christian right has to do to get him to hope there’s a civil war. You will note the word “or” that I bolded. This implies that any one of these will do, completely annihilating the arguments of the illiterates who think Hitchens wants a civil war only against those who want to set up a “theocracy”.
Here is the grand finale. Note how colossal failure and discredit isn’t enough for Hitchens, he also HOPES it would lead to civil war (as opposed to people exercising their democratic right to vote such people out of power, or bring forth massive protest against such an “oppressive” regime), and furtherwmore states he would take great pleasure from partaking in such a civil war against anyone who supports even one of the issues he listed. So if you’re pro life and want to ban abortion,
HitlerHitchens would take great pleasure in helping to kill you. This is the writing “peski” finds “thought provoking”. And then he has the audacity to complain about me questioning whether he wants to kill Conservative Christians too. Where would I get such a crazy idea from?Sounds fair to me.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Darth Executioner,
I find it difficult to have a serious conversation about anything with somebody who hangs that king of moniker on themselves, but discussing matters of life and death is absurd.
You apparently disregarded the first words of my post because acknowledging them destroys your argument, I said he has a point. I did not say he had a Koran, or a religious epiphany that we must follow with fundamentalist fervor. I said he had a point.
Some of us are trying to have a discussion, not operate a madrassa. Why don’t you step down off the plinth and talk about things instead of pontificating in absolutes about a relative matter?
Patrick_Lasswell on November 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
How does it “destroy my argument” that Hitchens wants to kill conserative Christians? Please explain, I can’t wait.
Darth Executor on November 19, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Darth Executor,
Because even if he was Chuck Manson with a bloody knife in his hand, if he’s got a point, he’s got a point. Your contention amounts to asserting that because he is unkind to fundamentalists, he is incapable of coherent thought or articulate discussion.
Let’s turn this around, your argument indicates that Christopher Hitchens is to be ignored because the Westboro Baptist Church is without sin. If we bar consideration to those with murderous thoughts regarding Rev. Phelps, who gets to speak? Aren’t the idiots of WBC conservative Christians? Don’t they inspire murderous intent in reasonable people?
Patrick_Lasswell on November 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Hitler.
No, I have nothing else to add. Except maybe that I find the comparison so mind numbingly stupid that I’m wondering how it can be made without actually laughing.
Defense Guy on November 19, 2007 at 3:24 PM
The left has won the foreign policy debate. Why not hope America wins the war too
The fact is, the MSM and the Democratic Party wants America to lose the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW, the left has NOT won the foreign policy debate.
georgej on November 19, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Oh RLY, tell that to Hillary and Obama.
Nice Deb on November 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM
To say “the left has won the foreign policy debate” assumes the left has been debating foreign policy, which, Allah, you know they most certainly have not. The left has been obfuscating, lying, slandering, then lying some more, all the while knowing that no one benefits more from their shameless antics than al-Qaeda. If there has been one iota of reasoned debate from them I must have missed it. And just because Bush has backed down from the Bush Doctrine doesn’t mean the Bush Doctrine has been proven wrong by the opposition – it only means he has backed down (for reasons still inexplicable).
Halley on November 19, 2007 at 3:33 PM
The Dolchstosslegende.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 3:46 PM
That is a pretty disturbing statement. Its the Trotskyist strain in Hitchens’ mentality coming to the fore. I doubt whether he’d be able to foment an actual civil war though. The Hitler comparison is too extreme.
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 3:55 PM
It’s inapplicable to Muslim-majority countries as we all now know that Muslims believe Mohammed received a mandate from heaven to rule in the one true political system that is pleasing to Allah: sharia. If you want genuine democracy you have to do what Kemal Ataturk did, suppress and constrain Islam.
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 4:02 PM
For Pete’s sake, will everyone please shut up about winning in Iraq. Do you really want the lefties to learn about this? Let them go on believing we’re losing. Let them drive off that defeatist cliff.
By election time next year the news of victory will be impossible to ignore, right in the middle of the presidential campaign. The more the lefties believe in defeat, the more stupid things they’ll say, and the more crow they will need to eat in the presidential debates and campaign trail. This is the golden opportunity that comes but few times to show that the liberals are stupid, the media are liars, and to win the presidency again. That’s a trifecta, baby.
My fondest dream is to have Hillary droning on about the quagmire in Iraq at the Democratic Convention while the Baghdadis are having a victory parade down their main street with bands playing, giving a big bouquet of thanks to General Petraeus. I want to see that on a split screen on Fox News.
Tantor on November 19, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Amen brother. Amen.
Agrippa2k on November 19, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Fortunately, for the military there’s more than one way to bomb a fascist.
What we are seeing is a new war theory in the womb. All out war in WWII was scaled back for Vietnam and Korea. Broad peacetime deployments in around the world are losing flavor.
The success in Afghanistan and early actions in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom have developed a new mind set. Strong incursions, devastate the enemy, then leave ‘em begging.
This may be something we will see in Darfur, regardless of who the next President is. What they are still trying to work out is the humanitarian aid and rebuilding blitz. This part moves way too slowly.
Agrippa2k on November 19, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Hitchens wonders.
I have no doubt.
drjohn on November 19, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Comment pages: