More on Hitchens

by John Q on June 9, 2005

Harry’s piece on Christopher Hitchens prompted me to collect some thoughts about him. I briefly reviewed Letters to a Young Contrarian a few years ago (along with Lilla’s “The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics) and found plenty both to like (the gadfly’s unwillingness to accept evasions and easy answers) and to dislike (the tendency to vendetta, epitomised by his campaign against Clinton).

That was when he was still on the Left. Having signed up with Bush, Hitchens has found his talent for vendetta in high demand, but the Bushies aren’t too keen on hard truths. So we get pieces like this one on the Bush Administration’s backing for the Uzbekistan dictator Karimov, notable for the observation

The United States did not invent or impose the Karimov government: It “merely” accepted its offer of strategic and tactical help in the matter of Afghanistan

This phraseology is, or ought to be, familiar – it’s virtually identical to rhetoric defending or downplaying the Reagan Administration’s embrace (metaphorical and, in Rumsfeld’s case, literal) of Saddam during the 1980s, when his foreign wars and internal oppression killed vast numbers of people (Google “US did not create Saddam” or “Did not install Saddam” for examples)[1].

Hitchens eventually gets around to saying

It’s therefore rather depressing and alarming that President Bush has not said a word about conditions in Uzbekistan

, but the main focus of attack is on those on the Left who’ve had the temerity to point on the contradictions in Hitchens’ own position.

Even now, I doubt that Hitchens would accept “the US did not invent or impose Saddam” as a justification for the aid and comfort given to Saddam in the 1980s. But, given his current trajectory, I think it’s only a matter of time.

fn1. Having raised this point on my own blog and elsewhere, I’ve seen a response to the effect that the Administration did not back Saddam unequivocally. Rather, it supported whichever side in the Iran-Iraq war appeared weaker (Iran-Contra being cited as an example), aiming to prolong the war but not allow either side a decisive victory. I don’t think this is a correct analysis, but if true, it would represent a greater war crime than merely backing Saddam as the lesser of two evils.

{ 53 comments }

1

rd 06.09.05 at 5:16 pm

What an exceptionally tendentious reading of Hitchens’ article! Under any reasonable reading, The main focus of the article is not to attack the Left but to point out the inconsistency of the Bush’s relative inaction on Uzbekistan. He doesn’t just “get around” to this, its shot through the whole thing. The second paragraph ends:

“However, the United States not only maintains air bases on Uzbek soil but has “rendered” wanted prisoners to Karimov’s tender mercies, so we have no right to be neutral about what goes on there.”

There is a sting at the end about leftist critique
about the Uzbekistan “exception” conceding the value of the Bush administration’s overall strategy of democratic regime change, but to say that the article is mainly about either whacking critics to the left or justifying current administration policy is a ridiculous distortion.

2

John Quiggin 06.09.05 at 5:55 pm

The article begins and ends with attacks on the left, and has plenty in the middle. And, while Hitchens suggests a stronger verbal line, his substantive position is that military co-operation with Karimov should continue:

“Presumably, those who criticize Karimov’s internal conduct are not asking that we repudiate such help (or are they?).”

Hitchens doesn’t even state a clear position on extraordinary rendition. If it weren’t for the awfulness of the policy, the natural reading would be that this is part of the help he gives the US in the war against terror.

3

neil 06.09.05 at 6:00 pm

JQ is a fine example of being unable to distinguish between supporting some of Bush’s policies and “Having signed up with Bush” which implies some overall loyalty. Yes, some on the Left supported the war, but that is different from being a complete “Bushie”.

If you want to have a dialogue with liberal hawks then you might want to look at things with a bit more subtlety than this either you’re 100% for Bush or 100% opposed nonsense.

4

Rich Puchalsky 06.09.05 at 6:05 pm

I’ve never understood why people are interested in Hitchens. He’s a horrible, sloppy writer, and always was. He never was unwilling “to accept evasions and easy answers”, he always just liked getting attention by thuggishly attacking those who he was displeased with at the moment.

5

Syd Webb 06.09.05 at 6:11 pm

I’ve seen a response to the effect that the Administration did not back Saddam unequivocally. Rather, it supported whichever side in the Iran-Iraq war appeared weaker (Iran-Contra being cited as an example), aiming to prolong the war but not allow either side a decisive victory.

Which rather begs the question of why the US didn’t supply lend-lease to Germany when they were in the later, losing, stages of their war with the Soviet Union. Clearly FDR was no Ronald Reagan.

6

engels 06.09.05 at 6:17 pm

I can also admire the gadfly’s unwillingness to accept evasions and easy answers. It’s just that in Hitchen’s case, more often than not, this seems to be an intellectual pose adopted for the greater good of further inflating Christopher Hitchen’s ego.

7

Kevin Donoghue 06.09.05 at 6:20 pm

Hitchens seems to be the topic of the week. Via Ophelia Benson, I see that Norman Geras is taking him to task for what looks remarkably like religious bigotry. I don’t know his work well enough to pronounce on that. Maybe he had taken a drink or three. As to this article, the bit that caught my eye was:

If Bush’s critics are implicitly demanding that he do something about Uzbekistan, are they not also conceding that his policy there blemishes the wider support for regime-change?

Speaking for myself, if I mention Uzbekistan, Darfur or whatever to a liberal hawk, the only point I am making is this: You evidently believe that Bush is not a practitioner of realpolitik wrapped in humanitarian clothing. Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?

Hitchens seems to see this as a PR problem for Bush, rather than a matter of liberal hawks misreading the situation completely.

8

am 06.09.05 at 6:36 pm

John, this posting is rank bullshit.

You really need to go and learn a bit about Reagan-era policy on the Iran-Iraq war and about the sources of Iraq’s cash and weapons.

Once you’ve done that you’ll withdraw this misinformed smear in shame.

9

Dan Nexon 06.09.05 at 6:43 pm

am: is your point that Iraq was, in no small measure, armed and funded by the Soviets? That’s true, but the US also supported Iraq for precisely the reasons John identifies, as part of a strategy of offshore balancing in the Gulf with a particularly strong emphasis on containing Iran.

10

Dan Nexon 06.09.05 at 6:48 pm

Indeed, check out the National Security Archive summary:

“Although the set focuses on documents directly concerned with what came to be called the “Iraqgate” scandal, it provides a historic context for them by incorporating materials on related subjects. Among the relevant issues addressed are the decision taken by the Reagan administration to improve political and economic relations with Iraq, and the rationale for pursuing this decision, which became a major tenet of U.S. foreign policy toward the Persian Gulf Region. The U.S. foreign policy toward the Persian Gulf region. The U.S. remained firmly committed to this policy, despite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq war and against it s own Kurdish population, and despite persistent reports of Iraq’s efforts to develop nonconventional weapons. Iraq’s use of chemical warfare and its weapons programs, pursued with technology form the West, are also among the collection’s major subjects.”

11

Iron Lungfish 06.09.05 at 6:50 pm

Hitchens’s entire point in the article is obfuscated by his own writing – riddled as it is with gratuitous snipings and defensive posturings. He spends so much time doubling back on himself rhetorically or pouncing on (what appear to be) unrelated third parties (as usual, “peaceniks” and the left) that he renders himself incoherent, which is another reason which I’ve found him a consistently lousy writer. Most liberals have only begun to remark on this since his post-9/11 swing to the right, but it’s always been there, and the comparison between him and Orwell in the last thread was laughable.

Nevertheless, what little message can be gleaned from Hitchens’s petulant defensiveness appears to be here:

“States and superpowers cannot only be moral individuals, and even moral individuals may need to make shabby compromises for survival, and there may be an occasional need to practice realpolitik for pressing military reasons, but in all cases it is necessary to be aware that one is doing so. …Uzbekistan has been a hypocritical ally of regime change, and Saudi Arabia a cunning foe in the guise of a friend, but our complicity in both is about the same.

“It has always to be remembered that such regimes will not last forever, and that one day we will be asked, by their former subjects, what we were doing while they were unable to speak for themselves. Better to have the answer ready now and to consider American influence in a country as the occasion for leverage rather than as the occasion for awkward silence. The common term for this dilemma during the Cold War, when things were much more zero-sum, was ‘double standards.'”

In other words, bad luck, old chums, but war’s a messy old business. Chin up, it won’t last forever, y’know!

12

Dan Nexon 06.09.05 at 6:50 pm

And from the accompanying essay:

“The Bush administration became a particular focus of criticism because it followed its predecessor in making strengthened U.S.-Iraq relations a key objective, despite the fact that the end of the Iran-Iraq war had eliminated a major rationale for this goal. A transition paper prepared for the new presidency outlined the conflicts that characterized U.S. policy toward Iraq. The paper recommended assigning high priority to U.S.-Iraq relations because of Saddam Hussein’s potential as a “major player,” but reviewed persistent divisive issues, including Iraq’s chemical weapons use which “aroused great emotions” in the U.S., and its “abominable human rights record.” These negative factors were contrasted with Iraq’s value as a market and its potential as a trading partner, and wit the fact that it shared an interest with the U.S. in containing Iran. The paper recommended that the new administration should begin with a high-level message calling for further development of political and economic relations.”

13

Kevin Donoghue 06.09.05 at 6:56 pm

Dan, if you want to know what am’s “point” is, look at comments no. 44 and 46 in Harry’s thread. That’s am for you.

14

Ginger Yellow 06.09.05 at 7:44 pm

“JQ is a fine example of being unable to distinguish between supporting some of Bush’s policies and “Having signed up with Bush” which implies some overall loyalty. ”

Hitchens has said he would have voted for Bush. I’d say that’s pretty good justification for saying that he’s “signed up with” him. Or do you have a better definition?

15

Randy Paul 06.09.05 at 8:09 pm

Yes, Hitch’s pod has hatched and now he’s just a member of the pod people.

16

neil 06.09.05 at 8:31 pm

Even now, I doubt that JQ would accept “the US did not invent or impose Saddam” as a justification for the aid and comfort given to Saddam in the 1980s. But, given his current trajectory, I think it’s only a matter of time.

See… easy, stupid, facile. Make up something up, imagine some else believes this and hey presto…worthy of Chomsky.

ginger, if that’s how you want to characterise people who happen to agree with Bush on some issues then fine.

17

george 06.09.05 at 9:06 pm

I think that Hitchens’ main point is that there are many who level a double standard charge against the Administration in bad faith, because what they seek is not consistency in regime change, but rather no regime changes at all–no matter how dire the humanitarian need–if Bush is to be the changer.

Certainly not everyone who levels the double standard charge levels it in that sort of bad faith. But there are enough who do to warrant Hitchens’ sarcasm.

..And that of all genuine progressives (if we must have these labels) for that matter.

18

JRoth 06.09.05 at 9:44 pm

neil-

So would you have us believe that, in the winter of ’02-’03, you were busily engaging anti-war folks without the use of rhetoric such as “serious people” and “objectively pro-“? Now that liberal hawks have been shown to have been wrong on just about every count, they do seem awfully sensitive about the terms of debate.

Just as war is hell, so are discussions about war not precisely a tea party. If you advocate elective war despite widely-seen counterindications, don’t come crying to those of us who had our eyes open, and were scorned for it by the likes of you.

Judging by your idiotic, non sequitur attempt at turning the tables on JQ, I don’t have much reason to believe you argued in good faith then.

Oh, and since Hitch has also been on board with Bush for torture, profiling, and McCarthyite attacks on all who dare question Bush or his motives, yeah, I’d say he’s “signed up.” If you hold a more nuanced view, perhaps you’d like to express it for yourself, rather than defend a hack.

19

John Quiggin 06.09.05 at 11:13 pm

To be clear, my statement that Hitchens had “signed up with Bush” was a judgement about him personally, not about all supporters of the war. I think it’s evident from this piece (among others) that he says himself as being on one side, led by President Bush, and the left in general on the other.

20

rd 06.10.05 at 12:16 am

Again, tendentious. He doesn’t oppose “repudiating” our presence in Uzbekistan. He opposes “repudiating” he essential logistical help Uzbekistan gave when we overthrew the Taliban.

For those with short memories, the Uzbekistan land route was essential for trucking in food aid to avert the famine widely predicted as a result of US military action. The Uzbekistan airbase was essential for covering the Northern alliance’s initial operations approaching Muzar-al-Sharir. To say we should have *never* have gone into Uzbekistan is to say the Taliban should never have been overthrown, or should only have been so at a vastly greater cost in Afghanistani livies.

As for our *current* presence he’s quite explicit that we should go beyond words to use whatever “leverage” we have to improve conditions. If we can use our current presence to wring real improvements out of Karimov, I have no problem with us staying. If not, we should go, though that likely won’t lead to any definite improvement in the situation. Central Asian despots don’t need American bases to be brutally repressive. Visit Turkmenistan some time.

21

george 06.10.05 at 12:53 am

Irked by John Q’s suspiciously rigid position on Uzbekistan, I became curious what he might have to say about North Korea — quite another case, of course, but similar in that NK is also an unsavory regime presenting few alternatives other than useless fulmination and war.

I found this, from 12/16/02, on his own blog:

“[…]Unfortunately, there are no appealing options in this case. It seems clear that the co-operation, or at least acquiescence of the Chinese government is going to be needed, and that any military option raises a severe risk of an attack on South Korea and perhaps Japan. The most promising solution is one where China applies the pressure required to force the abandonment of North Koreas nuclear program and its missile development. The amount of pressure required will be large, and the diplomatic price correspondingly high….”

“I find the prospect of a deal with the Chinese Communist Party even more worrying than than the deal with Musharraf that was needed to secure Pakistans overthrow the Taliban, or the various trade-offs that will be required in any Middle East deal….But there may be no alternative to a deal. Some juicy carrots will have to be offered, but if Bush has the moral clarity he claims to have he shouldnt be afraid to show the stick as well….”

Like I said, North Korea is a ompletely different case than Uzbekistan. For starters, NK actually threatens the US with substantial physical damage, and Uzekistan does not. But John Q’s thoughts on NK are nuanced, tempered with an understanding that the real world does not offer ideal solutions, in a way that his Uzbekistan position is not.

22

John Quiggin 06.10.05 at 1:07 am

George, I fail to see the inconsistency here. I’m not calling for Karimov to be overthrown by force, but for a carrot and stick approach, where the first stick to be used is withdrawal of US military co-operation (including the air base), and the carrots, as in the Ukraine, include closer ties with the EU.

If as rd suggests, Hitchens supports using the threat of closing the air base as a lever, then we’re in agreement. But for a writer who generally has no trouble making his position clear, Hitch has certainly been vague on what should actually be done in this case.

23

Brendan 06.10.05 at 3:20 am

The salient point abuot Uzbekistan, that the ‘pro war left’ seem unable to understand, is that their argument is that there has been a 180 degree change in American foreign policy, and that despite the fact that George Bush is a member of the same political party of Kissingerean realpolitik, and despite the fact that Dubya is biologically related to one of the prime proponents of this policy (his dad), there is, literally, no relation between Bushie foreign policy and that which preceded him. Hence the reason Hitchens continually lies and states that Kissinger did not approve of the current war (not only a lie but an easily disprovable lie).
This is why Uzbekistan is so important. If Bush is SERIOUS about democracy one would expect that

a: he would no react to the current abuses in Uzbkeistan by threatening to cut aid, and threatening to pull out the military bases there.

b: stop threatening (and more) to overthrow Latin American democratically elected governments and replace them with dictatorships.

c: break the corrupt links with countries like, say, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, known proponents of anti-semitism, terrorism, and grotesque human rights violations, withdraw funding/aid unless this is linked to human rights, and withdraw their military bases from other countries with poor/apalling human rights records.

To date none of these things have happened. We are now into Bush’s 2nd term. When will they start happening? And if they don’t by the end of Bush’s terms, will Hitchens et al admit that Bush is simply business as usual, with the exception that he has tended to be even more violent and aggressive than almost all of his predecessors (with the exception, so far, of Nixon).

24

Sebastian Holsclaw 06.10.05 at 3:35 am

“I think it’s evident from this piece (among others) that he says himself as being on one side, led by President Bush, and the left in general on the other.”

I suspect that is a matter of the choices offered to him. If offered a leader on the left who Hitchens thought would seriously fight Islamist terrorism instead of retreating, I’m sure Hitchens would choose that person over Bush.

25

john b 06.10.05 at 4:44 am

seriously fight Islamist terrorism instead of retreating

Wow, there *are* still articulate, apparently sane people (well, one person) who still think that “Islamist terrorism” is such a serious threat that it’s more important than everything else when choosing a leader. I thought they’d all quietly died of shame…

26

Barry 06.10.05 at 5:42 am

John b, some people will never die of shame; they’re just as incapable of that as I would be of dying due to inability to controly my telepathic powers.

And Sebastian’s argument actually makes Hitchens look worse. Apparently the way to fight islamic terrorism it to support every nasty dictator who’s ‘our son of a bitch’. Which, of course is identical to the method of fighting communism.
What an amazing coincidence!!

27

james 06.10.05 at 5:58 am

Hitchen’s article has recently been discussed at Harry’s Place.

“There is a sting at the end about leftist critique about the Uzbekistan “exception” conceding the value of the Bush administration’s overall strategy of democratic regime change”

I think Hitchen’s point that regime change is the strategy and Uzbekistan is the exception could be debated, surely there’s a case that support for dictators is the policy and Afghanistan and Iraq are the exceptions? Someone at Harry’s Place mentioned that if we start listing dictators that the US wants to overthrow and dictators that the US is propping up, the first list will be much shorter than the second.

Hitchens also proposes we should be “properly grateful” to the Uzbek regime for its help against the Taliban. I find this slightly sinister, as any gratitude is going to go to Karimov and not the Uzbek people – and if it takes material form will help support his regime. It also reminds us that part of the price being paid for democracy in Afghanistan is support for people repressing democracy in Pakistan and Uzbekistan. This make me more than a little uncomfortable.

28

abb1 06.10.05 at 6:20 am

Yup, I agree with Sebastian: in the end it all comes down to the dreadful Islamists for Mr. Hitchens.

Islamists are people dreaming of destroying our way of life, trying to control the world. We can’t flinch here, gotta stay on course. For us to survive they must be destroyed while it’s not too late.

Karimov helps:

Uzbek president blames Islamists:
…Mr Karimov, an ally of both Washington and Moscow’s war on terror, has taken a tough line on security since a spate of suicide bombings last year, blamed on Islamic extremists.

29

Wallace Francis 06.10.05 at 9:24 am

The only thing I can draw from this debate is that there are still people who are convinced that they, not Hitchens, are the authentic anti-fascist left in the manner the shrill, hysterical anti-war left derided Orwell on the eve of WWII. Should we be so wedded to our politics of opposition that we are unable to see the difference between George Bush and Slobodan Milosevic?

For the last two decades I have been watching these mass totalitiarian movements slowly moving forward; there can be bombs exploding from Madrid to Thailand and still there are people falling all over themselves making excuses for it. We have met the enemy and he is us?

The fact that this enemy is real, that they are irrational and the US is a prop in their grandiose fantasy, and that there are less than pretty characters who we need to protect ourselves and the secular, liberal societies many of you ostensibly support shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle.

30

george 06.10.05 at 9:36 am

John, it just irks me that you can’t acknowledge that the US has, in fact, used lots of sticks, and progressively uses more stick that carrot as the situation deteriorates in Uzbekistan. Instead, you want to paint Bush and the US as hypocrites. We’re not; we’re dealing in the real world.

31

Chris Clarke 06.10.05 at 9:37 am

Who had #29 in the “Hitchens is the new Orwell” pool?

32

Ginger Yellow 06.10.05 at 9:40 am

“For the last two decades I have been watching these mass totalitiarian movements slowly moving forward; there can be bombs exploding from Madrid to Thailand and still there are people falling all over themselves making excuses for it. ”

And on the other hand there are people who support invasions of completely unconnected countries with the result of fomenting such totalitarian movements. People who accuse the “old left”, for want of a better phrase, of appeasing Islamofascism ignore the fact that we, along with various intelligence agencies and countless experts on terrorism and foreign relations, argued vociferously before the war that an invasion would create a hotbed of terrorism where none existed before. And for that matter that the left had been denouncing the Taliban since it came to power, particularly for its antifeminism. And yet this situation is somehow our fault?

33

David W. 06.10.05 at 1:57 pm

george, exactly what what sticks (policy, economic, whatever) has the U.S. used to curb Karimov?

34

dglp 06.10.05 at 4:11 pm

Does this mean that for every Galloway there’s a Hitchens?

35

Brendan 06.10.05 at 5:30 pm

‘The only thing I can draw from this debate is that there are still people who are convinced that they, not Hitchens, are the authentic anti-fascist left in the manner the shrill, hysterical anti-war left derided Orwell on the eve of WWII.’

This is false. As I thought would be tolerably well known on the EVE of WW2, Orwell was an ‘ultra’, an ‘extremist’ left winger: or in other words, part of the ‘shrill, hysterical anti-war left’. Right up until August 1939 Orwell wanted to form a radical left wing movement that would destroy the British war effort and start a revolution. It was only after his famous ‘dream’ on the night before that pact (i.e. the 27th August) that he decided that he would not sabotage the war or otherwise try and hinder the war effort. Even until 1942/1943 Orwell was aggressively anti-Churchill, and very much on the extreme left of the Labour party, as his essays of the time make clear.

36

soru 06.10.05 at 5:40 pm


The salient point abuot Uzbekistan, that the ‘pro war left’ seem unable to understand, is that their argument is that there has been a 180 degree change in American foreign policy

You’d think that commentators at a pretty sophisticated site that covers this issue a lot would, by now, have grasped the bare essentials of the anti-fascist left argument. Instead, it semes some people are still stuck on attacking some straw man about Bush being an entirely noble and benevolent individual who would spare no expense, risk or cost to bring perfect democracy to the entire world simultaneously.

soru

37

praktike 06.10.05 at 7:10 pm

OK, but isn’t it absolutely true that the US did not, in fact, create Karimov?

38

ProfWombat 06.10.05 at 8:43 pm

Hitchens is a guilty pleasure when you agree with him, and an utter pain in the ass when you don’t. He doesn’t illuminate; he’s a funhouse mirror.

39

Billings 06.10.05 at 11:01 pm

“He’s a horrible, sloppy writer, and always was.”

Please. You may disagree with his opinions, but Hitchens is one of the better stylists around today. Not in Mark Steyn’s league, but who is?

40

george xvii 06.10.05 at 11:32 pm

John Q.,

First, I should say that I’m only the George who posted comment no. 17, and not any other George who has posted, which is why I’m now calling myself George XVII, to be clear.

What you say in comment no. 22 is fair enough, but the charge of double standards is often made not in the form of

“why regime change here & not (at least) carrots and sticks there?” but rather in the form

“why regime change here & not regime change there?”

when in fact those leveling the charge don’t want regime change anywhere, if Bush is the one making the change.

But even carrots and sticks–i.e., things short of regime change–can be demanded in bad faith. That’s not what I take you to be doing, but there are some who will criticize Bush whatever he does. Even when he does what they want, they will criticize him for the manner in which he does it. They have every right to do so, of course, but sometimes it is not concern for the greater good that motivates the criticism–it is just contempt for Bush, down to the way he ties his shoelaces.

Though Hitchens has written mainly on foreign policy, he’s written enough pieces here and there about his own position re. social conservatism (he’s, em, ***STRONGLY AGAINST IT***) to make his being called a “Bushie” sound odd to my ears.

If all that’s meant by “Bushie” is someone who voted for Bush, then fair enough. But that means that Democratic former mayor of New York Ed Koch–whose first ever vote for a Republican Presidential candidate was the vote he cast to re-elect George W. Bush (exclusively on security and foreign policy grounds), who urged voters to vote Democrat for Congress, and who is about as socially progressive as an American public figure can be–is a Bushie.

Back to Hitchens’ piece, though. I suppose he could have been more explicit in condemning what is going on in Uzbekistan. One interpretation about why he was less than fully explicit is that he is on some sort of path towards total sycophancy towards the Bush Administration. That’s your reading, I take it.

I give him much more credit than that, myself. I think he might have just lost his patience with the bad faith crowd, and thought to himself: “Let me be sarcastic and opaque. They see me as a traitor to the Left anyhow, so to heck with them.” If that *is* what he thought, then I can’t really blame him, though it would mean that on this instance, in this one recent Slate piece, he had not presented his best self.

Given that the Left has, er, on occasion, in recent memory, not presented its own best self, one might expect it to recognize a mild case of that flaw in an essay, and not to leap to thoughts about how this indicates that Hitchens is on some awful path.

I can’t speak for Hitchens, but I voted for Bush myself, so let me say, loudly and clearly:
THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD USE (AND BE IN EARNEST WHEN IT USES) THE THREAT OF BASE CLOSURES AND OTHER MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO UZBEKI HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

Good?

Now that that’s dispatched, I won’t begin to tell you what I’d like the Left to say loudly and clearly. This comment is already a little long, and my expectations….my expectations are not what they once were.

41

John Quiggin 06.11.05 at 1:18 am

Praktike, as with Saddam, it’s true that the US did not, in fact, create Karimov. But, again as with Saddam, this is not an excuse for aiding and abetting his crimes.

42

Kevin Donoghue 06.11.05 at 4:45 am

Who had #29 in the “Hitchens is the new Orwell” pool?

Threw it away. I mean, double figures! Whoda thunk it?

43

engels 06.11.05 at 6:37 am

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Hitchens is the new Orwell.

44

John Quiggin 06.11.05 at 3:48 pm

George XVII, a big problem in the discussion is the term “Left”. Taking “Left” to include US Democrats, UK Labour supporters and so on (and in particular to include me and others at CT) the Left as a whole supported Bush on Afghanistan and previously supported Clinton on Bosnia and Kosovo.

The Left mostly opposed the Iraq war not out of reflexivw anti-Americanism but out of a judgement, partly due to the inherent weakness of the case for war and partly due to experience with Bush, that it would do much more harm than good. This judgement has proved correct.

If by Left you mean, say, Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali, then I agree that Hitchens had good reason to distance himself from them. But it’s possible to do that, and even to support the Iraq war, while recognising that Bush’s foreign policy is, like his domestic policy, based on rewarding friends and punishing enemies, and that Saddam just happened to be in the “enemy” category.

Uzbekistan provides a clear test case, and all Hitchens can do is ask for some rhetorical cover from Bush, while maintaining the alliance with Karimov.

45

abb1 06.11.05 at 4:01 pm

What’s the good reason to distance from Chomsky and Ali, ‘the bad faith crowd’, as George XVII puts it? Have they been proven wrong – when? I must’ve missed it.

46

Brendan 06.11.05 at 4:31 pm

‘You’d think that commentators at a pretty sophisticated site that covers this issue a lot would, by now, have grasped the bare essentials of the anti-fascist left argument. Instead, it semes some people are still stuck on attacking some straw man about Bush being an entirely noble and benevolent individual who would spare no expense, risk or cost to bring perfect democracy to the entire world simultaneously.’

No no no no no no no. I don’t think ANYBODY is perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect government, and I certainly don’t expect perfection from a US President. My argument was rather different. The ‘anti-fascist left’ (ahem) have to argue, HAVE to argue that neoconservativism is a radical BREAK from Kissingerean realpolitik. If this is not the case, their argument breaks down entirely. Hence the reason, as i pointed out, that they consistently lie and argue that Kissinger opposed the Iraqi invasion (to reiterate, he SUPPORTED it, as is easily demonstrated in, oh, about 30 seconds by a quick websearch).

However, to repeat, if it were true that Bush was genuine about democracy we would see a number of things (listed in my post above) none of which have happened.

The only argument for the democratic credentials of Bush is the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But here the point is quite simple. Do Bush and Blair intend to quit these countries? If so, when? And (as was quickly seen in the case of the Lebanon) given that a gigantic occupying power cannot help but sway the democratic process no matter how ‘good’ their intentions (again as was quickly seen in the case of Syria in Lebanon), then how does Bush square his commitment to democracy with the prospect of long term occupation?

The logical flaw is simply this: smuggling in your premises to your conclusions. The pro-war ‘left’ ASSUME that Bush’s intentions in Iraq and Afghanistan are good, and that they ‘intend to leave’ as soon as ‘the job’s done’. But that’s precisely the point: it is this intention to leave that is in fact the issue. If one rejects this assumption then the entire argument of the ‘antifascist left’ disintegrates, and they are no better than those who defended the Syrian impact on Lebanese politics on the grounds of Israeli aggression (or ‘aggression’ depending on your point of view).

47

william 06.12.05 at 1:04 am

It’s late. I’m on my way to bed. But a couple of quick ideas for you folks to kick around:

1) Maybe there’s a middle road. Maybe we can keep our bases in Uzbekistan and financially punish the Uzbeki leadership. In general, though I’m not familiar with the specifics of the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Uzbeki governments, American military installations overseas give priority in employment to host-country nationals. While the U.S. military isn’t a branch of the State Department or a contingent of Peace Corps volunteers, it can serve a very useful public relations role with the Uzbeki people. Employment on American installations provides Uzbeki citizens with regular contact with Americans and (likely) better pay than the local economy.At the same time, all American aid to the Uzbeki government (and most especially its military and security programs) should be halted, save for humanitarian and other aid distinctly for the Uzbeki people. (This means ending all joint training programs between Uzbeki and American forces as well.)

By taking a more nuanced view (and using U.S. military overseas hiring policy to one’s advantage), it almost seems like one gets to punish the leadership while continuing to build pro-American sentiment among the citizenry and, hopefully, solidifying a middle class that can ultimately take control of the country on their own (to some degree).

2) Military strategy toward China. I don’t think our East Asian bases can be viewed solely through the lens of current Middle Eastern-centered “war on terrorism” strategizing. Personally, I see American bases slowly hopscotching their way through the Middle East and getting closer to the China.

48

william 06.12.05 at 1:37 am

Oh, and one more thing:

Not even for argument’s sake will I accept the premise that the Bush administration’s motivating concern has ever been humanitarian in any of its major military actions.

Should improvements in human welfare surface, grow and be maintained, such successes will still only be byproducts of largely (as measured by the stated objectives at the outset of the wars) failed incursions as measured — no WMDs and now there’s an al-Qaeda branch where none formerly existed; a narcostate and bin Laden still on the run.

The Bush administration set its own objectives at the beginning of these conflicts. Had they desired easier missions to accomplish, they should have dealt with Sudan. Don’t blame me for holding them to their own criteria.

49

Christopher Ball 06.12.05 at 11:04 am

Quiggin’s reading of Hitchen is tendentious: it reads like a Chomsky/Buckley misrepresentation of what another author actually said. Not that Hitchens column is coherent. One can read it as a veiled apologia for bedding down with torturer, or as a restatement of the long-standing Liberal dilemma between intervention and self-determination. See Kant, Perpetual Peace; Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience; Michael Doyle, Kant, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy
and Public Affairs.

50

John Quiggin 06.12.05 at 5:13 pm

Christopher, intervention isn’t the issue here. All I’m suggesting is the end of active military co-operation with Karimov.

Hitchens says ‘“Presumably, those who criticize Karimov’s internal conduct are not asking that we repudiate such help (or are they?).””

Of the two readings you suggest, only the first is tenable.

51

Ron F 06.12.05 at 6:08 pm

Washington’s relations with Islam Karimov pre-date 9-11 and the invasion of Aghanistan by nearly a decade, so when Hitchen’s writes that the U.S. – “merely accepted its offer of strategic and tactical help in the matter of Afghanistan” –

he’s either lying or totally ignorant of the subject matter. The UK involvement with Karimov also commenced much earlier. Had Hitchen’s checked Hansard he would see, for example, that in 1994 Karimov reportedly “brought all his gold over in the plane and delivered it to the Bank of England”.

File Hitchens under – “Court Jester”

52

Zelph 06.12.05 at 8:59 pm

Try doing a google search for “drink-soaked” and see what comes up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=drink-soaked&btnG=Google+Search

53

Ben P 06.13.05 at 2:14 am

Hitchens.

Always an interesting topic. Basically, he’s a polemicist, a stylist, whose knowledge is a mile wide, an inch deep. I guarantee if you read an article on a topic he writes on which you happen to know a lot about personally, you’ll see he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about half the time. I found this in his discussions of Jefferson.

Basically, I find him to be an incoherent thinker who lacks a moral center. He only writes against, never advocates in favor. His militant – violent – anti-religiousity is disturbing, and perhaps a reason why his writing seems so decentered and incoherent. Because at the end of the day, he doesn’t offer a coherent worldview for which he advocates: only a series of targets for which to attack. What, after all, does Hitchens believe in, now he’s no longer a committed leftist/socialist?

In some ways, I find his support for Bush and the Iraq War almost comical. His complete inability to understand the relevance of any knowledge or context outside his almost messianic belief in himself as a defender of some kind of dessicated spirit of “principled leftism.” The guy might write well, but he sure doesn’t seem to read much. Once again, Hitch has backed the wrong horse.

Comments on this entry are closed.