Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Ablow's folly | Main | Help the Red Cross help Katrina's victims »

August 30, 2005

Oh what a lovely war!

Christopher Hitchens looks on the bright side, viz Iraq, hilarity ensues.

JM Tyree responds at 3 Quarks:

The matter of a potentially failed state riddled with sectarian violence and vaste swathes of ungovernable territory from which jihadists can launch terrorist attacks worldwide does not really come into very sharp focus here.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh what a lovely war! :


Yes, well, I understand that freedom can be a bit... oh what's the word... "untidy?"

mojo sends

(Cross-posted to 3Quarks)

How does anybody let this idiot get away with such mendacity? Head-choppin' Zarqawi (#1) may have been in Iraq before the invasion, but he was in (#7) Kurd-land, which was much more autonomous during the US/UK flyover days. That's brain-dead Hitch's new link between Iraq and al-Q? That the head-chopper wasn't anywhere near Saddam, but he was technically on the same giant chunk of sand?!

That we can now (#6) "certify" that the imaginary weapons are gone rather than trust the non-jihadist Saddam? Forgetting all about those pre-war weapons inspectors, are we? And how are we in a better position in this regard now what we're about as welcome, trusted, and free to snoop around as a Palestinian at a Bat Mitzvah?

God, I'd need a drink if I drank.

Sad. I think he originaly wanted fame, but now he just wants attention.

Who could ever forget the President's stirring words during his 2004 State of the Union address?

"My fellow Americans, I am only asking for $1 trillion for a ten-year occupation that can't stave off an Islamic fundamentalist state allied with Iran, the creation of a huge terrorist training grounds, or three-party civil war."

He didn't even mention the bonus of straining the armed forces to the breaking point. What a modest guy.

I'm so glad that I never liked him.

Is that a real quote (don't make me look it up, please?)

This was my particular favorite example of Hitchen's delusional state:

"At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles."

Iran was on the verge of civil disorder in 2003. Before anti-Americanism based on the invasion of Iraq resolidified the mullahs power, they could not dream of using their military abroad.

Turkey would not risk starting a war in Iraq that might result in an independent Kurdistan. Relations between Turkey and its Kurdish minority have been improving for years after hitting a nasty low-point.

The idea of Saudi Arabia invading anyone though, is the best. The whole reason for our troops being there is that Saudi Arabia has essentially no military capacity whatsoever. Despite spending a lot of money, they have no power.

At worst, without US involvement, you'd get an implosion and civil war with these nations funding and materially aiding proxy forces. Seeing as how this is what we will probably get anyway, we've wrought a lot of destruction, wasted a lot of money and killed a lot of people for nothing. I shouldn't say it was for nothing. We solidified the power of the Iranian clerics, missed opportunities in Afghanistan and sullied our reputation. We also sent a message to North Korea and Iran. If you want to support terrorism and engage in proliferation of dangerous technology, you better get nuclear weapons like Pakistan, or you'll wind up like Iraq.

Hitch leaves the best till (nearly) last. One of his reasons to be cheerful is;

'The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.'

So we should happy about the war because ... it's a war and our troops get a chance to shoot people for real.

The Abu Ghraib part reminded me of something that I saw on Mr. Show, once: the most improved public image award to Nambla: the campaign went something like "NAMBLA: we're not killers" and the campaign said, "at NAMBLA, we don't advocate killing people, nor do we kill people. We just advocate sexual relationship between adult men and boys!"

The quote from James Baker ("we don't have a dog in this fight") was kinda sweet. The man for whom Mr. Baker was dog (at the time) surely must have had that terrible problem of the scientist who cannot quite bring himself to end the life of the Frankenstein that he helped to create and sustain. From Bush-1's days at CIA and Veep he had seen (and perhaps "seen to") the nurturing of "our SOB" in Iraq... right up to the "accidental" shooting down of the Iranian airliner tha effectively ended the Iran-Iraq War. (And, Talk about Efficiency!.. Saddam did more with the "ag chemicals", etc that he got for the $3 billion in "ag credits" that was laundered through the BCCI than all of the contract payouts will buy in the next year- fuels included; and the weenies still whine about a little "oil for food" scam that probably kept fuel in our aircraft carrier in the Gulf.)
Hitchens' statement about not coexisting with expansionist theocratic totalitarians will be hanging from his ass like a rabid pit bull, if the new Iraqi "Constitution" is approved... but maybe they won't be "expansionist" right away, depending on how things go with the new regime in Iran... I wonder how many former assassins who operated in the Western Hemisphere are living in Miami?.. and how that number compares with the #s in pre-2003 Baghdad? ^..^

The comments to this entry are closed.