Hitchens nails it…

The anniversary of the War in Iraq has been an excuse to indulge in the worst sort of ex poste revisionist history. Christopher Hitchens writing in Slate is having none of it. He engages in a little revisionism of his own:

He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam’s deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here’s what should have happened. The other member states of the United Nations should have said: Mr. President, in principle you are correct. The list of flouted U.N. resolutions is disgracefully long. Law has been broken, genocide has been committed, other member-states have been invaded, and our own weapons inspectors insulted and coerced and cheated. Let us all collectively decide how to move long-suffering Iraq into the post-Saddam era. We shall need to consider how much to set aside to rebuild the Iraqi economy, how to sponsor free elections, how to recuperate the devastated areas of the marshes and Kurdistan, how to try the war criminals, and how many multinational forces to ready for this task. In the meantime—this is of special importance—all governments will make it unmistakably plain to Saddam Hussein that he can count on nobody to save him. All Iraqi diplomats outside the country, and all officers and officials within it, will receive the single message that it is time for them to switch sides or face the consequences. Then, when we are ready, we shall issue a unanimous ultimatum backed by the threat of overwhelming force. We call on all democratic forces in all countries to prepare to lend a hand to the Iraqi people and assist them in recovering from more than three decades of fascism and war.
slate

Imagine if the French and the Russians had simply explained to Saddam that the jig was up rather than expending time and energy blocking the US and Britain. End of the line, buddy.

Would there have been a war? Would there have been an insurgency? Such deaths as there have been can be laid squarely at the feet of the French, the Russians and the UN. They were unwilling to call down a regime which was bribing them. No matter how awfful that regime was. Hitchens understands this - a lot of the rest of the pundits are wobbly and convinced that the war we have is our fault.

For the Iraqis this is an awful but essential process. It is only too bad that the French, the Russians and the UN had not the courage to forget their bribes and take action. It would have made the necessary a great deal less awful.

Written by jay on March 21st, 2006 with 7 comments.
Read more articles on International and Terror.

Related articles

7 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Alan
#1. March 21st, 2006, at 7:25 PM.

You’re right. It is revisionist season. Don’t forget that the Australians and others were also getting gobs of cash for Iraq, too. Oh, and that little WMD thing that we Canadians wanted some proof on. Too bad we can’t erase all that as well.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Robert McClelland
#2. March 22nd, 2006, at 12:49 AM.

I especially liked the part at the end where Hitchens thinks anyone opposed to the war should be strangled to death. Seriously Jay, if that didn’t cause you to flush Hitchens and his idiocy down the loo, there’s no hope for you.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Alan
#3. March 22nd, 2006, at 2:31 AM.

There’s hope for Jay. I know there is.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Sean Pelette
#4. March 22nd, 2006, at 4:34 AM.

Phoney pacifists, not ‘anyone opposed to the war’.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Looney Canuck
#5. March 22nd, 2006, at 5:25 AM.

A couple of things are wrong about your argument Jay. First, the blame cannot be squarely laid at the feet of the Russians, French, and UN. While they were certainly not guiltless, the Americans have made more than their share of mistakes before, during, and after the war.

The Americans have made the current troubles in Iraq their own fault, and may ultimately ruin themselves financially if not politically. I’m not one of those people who wants to see America destroyed, although we all know of some people who would. I might have even supported the war if some of the circumstances were different, such as a competent administration. But as it is, the situation looks to only get worse, and what happens afterward will be laid squarely on the feet of the U.S.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com jay
#6. March 22nd, 2006, at 1:16 PM.

I am not so inclined to see the Iraqi situation as getting worse. In fact there are any number of encouraging signs.

However, my point is that there was an alternative back before the war started: the French and the Russians could have come on board and made it very clear to Saddam that his days were drawing to a close. Had they done so the “war” which has been fought need not have happened.

At the moment the anti-warriors are busy preaching defeat and suggesting that the consequnces of that defeat are to be dropped at President Bush’s doorstep. I don’t think there is the slightest danger of defeat. I also think that the war has been protracted as a direct result of the UN’s (bought and paid for) irresolution and the illusionary policy of both the French and Russian governments.

This could have been a peacekeeping, transitional, mission; instead it is a nasty little insurgency which is killing Iraqis by the dozens.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Looney Canuck
#7. March 23rd, 2006, at 8:39 AM.

Firstof all, I did not absolve Russia, France and the U.N. of blame for anything, but do really believe that if they did support the U.S. invasion, Saddam would have simply gone down without a fight?

Also, if the American government had not acted so self-righteously before the war started, it would have at least made it harder for those other countries to say ‘no’ to war, even if they were being bought off by Saddam and his cronies. The Americans might have gotten some tacit approval and perhaps even more international help, if they had practiced even a modicum of diplomacy.

Also, I think that you are blaming the mistakes that the Americans have made since the overthrow of Saddam on the United Nations, and that is a huge cop-out. The Americans were clearly unprepared and had no idea what they were getting in to. The point being that the Americans have an active role in what is going on in Iraq at the moment, and they will be ultimately responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. We can only hope that they can still avert a humanitarian disaster.

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .