Hitchens' unjustified assertions about Iraq
I admire Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great) so much mainly because I love his aggressive no-nonsense style. I wouldn't want everyone in the world to be like him, but it is great to have a few of them. I've even admired his stance on Iraq, because he makes many very good points.
But I think I've managed to distill his opinions on the war down to their ultimate flaw. Essentially, we are presented with the option: interfere, accept inevitable deaths in the conflict and after, and provoke more terrorism and hatred of the West, while possibly arresting the progress of irrational regimes towards the manufacture of cataclysmic weaponry; or don't interfere, choose diplomatic means, and in the mean time accept inevitable deaths caused by those regimes and the possibility of them acquiring that weaponry. And he chooses the first and asserts vociferously that it is the lesser evil. We must promote civilised governance and stop theocratic regimes from getting nukes. But he doesn't seem to be able to argue for that.
Deaths and suffering and oppression are inevitable if we do nothing. But far more deaths and suffering are inevitable in the short term if we provoke aggressive war. How does Hitch know that in the end, the invaded nation will be better off? He cannot count the potential dead. But he can make a good estimate of how many will die because of war. And how can he know that the provocation that invasion creates won't actually accelerate the acquisition, and use, of apocalyptic weaponry by some group or some nation? He cannot know this for sure.
Neither can I know that the diplomatic route is safer. But I can look at history. And history tells me that sweeping changes to a country's governance and culture only come about over decades and centuries, not through any one imposition by some group promoting a new way of life. Such conflicts can only make relatively small changes, in the big scheme of things.
Democracy was not imposed on England after the Civil War, the emancipation of women not caused in one swoop by the Suffragettes or by the publication of The Female Eunuch, freedom of religion didn't suddenly 'switch on' after the French Revolution or when The Age of Reason hit the desk of King George or Thomas Jefferson. The closest thing I can think of to a culture-changing conflict was the American Civil War, 'causing' the abolition of slavery, but the conditions that set up the two conflicting parties were brought about by a whole array of earlier events and discourses.
There are probably many counter-examples, but it does seem to me that in the case of the Middle East, the changes that will bring about peace, reason and democracy will likely be closer in speed of action to those that brought it to the West, than a bit of a fight and a decade or two of aftermath. Surely the most likely causal agencies will come from within these countries, as they did for us, and as they seemed likely to do in Iran until we blundered into the region again and made the authorities crack down and the youth harden their attitudes.
Perhaps the reason Hitch makes the assertions he does is because this time there is more urgency, because Iran could get a nuke soon, and with their apocalyptic vision of the world they could be tempted to use them without any thought for the consequences. But it seems to me there is an easy argument that it is our actions in the middle east that provoke this outcome, just as much as our inaction.
The point is that Hitchens is too damned sure of himself. Normally he's quite carefully rational but on this point he seems to be making unjustified assertions simply because he cannot be seen to back down even slightly from the corner he backed himself into. So come on, Hitch, tell us why you think the fast, aggressive route is more likely to prevent Armageddon and reduce suffering than the slow, diplomatic, educational, evolutionary route? I'd love to know.
But I think I've managed to distill his opinions on the war down to their ultimate flaw. Essentially, we are presented with the option: interfere, accept inevitable deaths in the conflict and after, and provoke more terrorism and hatred of the West, while possibly arresting the progress of irrational regimes towards the manufacture of cataclysmic weaponry; or don't interfere, choose diplomatic means, and in the mean time accept inevitable deaths caused by those regimes and the possibility of them acquiring that weaponry. And he chooses the first and asserts vociferously that it is the lesser evil. We must promote civilised governance and stop theocratic regimes from getting nukes. But he doesn't seem to be able to argue for that.
Deaths and suffering and oppression are inevitable if we do nothing. But far more deaths and suffering are inevitable in the short term if we provoke aggressive war. How does Hitch know that in the end, the invaded nation will be better off? He cannot count the potential dead. But he can make a good estimate of how many will die because of war. And how can he know that the provocation that invasion creates won't actually accelerate the acquisition, and use, of apocalyptic weaponry by some group or some nation? He cannot know this for sure.
Neither can I know that the diplomatic route is safer. But I can look at history. And history tells me that sweeping changes to a country's governance and culture only come about over decades and centuries, not through any one imposition by some group promoting a new way of life. Such conflicts can only make relatively small changes, in the big scheme of things.
Democracy was not imposed on England after the Civil War, the emancipation of women not caused in one swoop by the Suffragettes or by the publication of The Female Eunuch, freedom of religion didn't suddenly 'switch on' after the French Revolution or when The Age of Reason hit the desk of King George or Thomas Jefferson. The closest thing I can think of to a culture-changing conflict was the American Civil War, 'causing' the abolition of slavery, but the conditions that set up the two conflicting parties were brought about by a whole array of earlier events and discourses.
There are probably many counter-examples, but it does seem to me that in the case of the Middle East, the changes that will bring about peace, reason and democracy will likely be closer in speed of action to those that brought it to the West, than a bit of a fight and a decade or two of aftermath. Surely the most likely causal agencies will come from within these countries, as they did for us, and as they seemed likely to do in Iran until we blundered into the region again and made the authorities crack down and the youth harden their attitudes.
Perhaps the reason Hitch makes the assertions he does is because this time there is more urgency, because Iran could get a nuke soon, and with their apocalyptic vision of the world they could be tempted to use them without any thought for the consequences. But it seems to me there is an easy argument that it is our actions in the middle east that provoke this outcome, just as much as our inaction.
The point is that Hitchens is too damned sure of himself. Normally he's quite carefully rational but on this point he seems to be making unjustified assertions simply because he cannot be seen to back down even slightly from the corner he backed himself into. So come on, Hitch, tell us why you think the fast, aggressive route is more likely to prevent Armageddon and reduce suffering than the slow, diplomatic, educational, evolutionary route? I'd love to know.
posted by extabgrad at 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home