Persistent claims that President Bush lied in order to propel the United States into Iraq are, themselves, lies. They begin with the assumption that he lied and then set out to prove that he did. Doing so is intended to undermine the rational justifications for the war itself. The argument is flawed partly because it is based on 20/20 hindsight and partly based upon a radical and dangerous oversimplification of international geopolitics. For my part, I do not give a tinker’s damn whether the specific reasons that were advanced at the outset proved to be 100% valid when everything was said and done. (It is not lying to have simply been wrong on one point or another.) What is really important is that the war has served a significant moral good.
Christopher Hitchens has written many books attacking religious belief in general and Christianity in particular, so one would hardly expect a devout man such as myself to embrace any book of his. There is, however, one book published in 2003 that is well worth the read. (Not to imply, however, that any other of his writings is not.) It is The Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq. A collection of essays written mostly for Slate.com, this book covers the ground of war justification very well. It hammers away at the inane arguments of those who opposed the war, and leaves the reader with a strong sense that Hitchen’s tour de force is the definitive work on the topic.
Given the many efforts by warmongers (otherwise known as pacifists), leftist zealots, and even Republican turncoats to characterize the Iraq war as anything from an unfortunate mistake to just one massive war crime, those who support the war are often intimidated and second guessing. Enter Christopher Hitchens. A take no prisoners writer of keen insight and acerbic wit, Mr. Hitchens takes on the cause of justifying the Iraq war with gusto and aplomb. Shouting from the rooftops, Hitchens shrivels his opponents with a logically compelling and unwavering apologia for the war. While opponents argue that this or that mistake in waging the war validates their general opposition, Hitchens presents without hesitance or reservation the ultimate moral justifications of the war in spite of them.
As a long-time supporter of the war, I did not need a validation of my views, so this book sat on my shelf unread for over three years. Recent trends among Republicans to distance themselves from the Bush Administration over war plans and justification drove me to pick up this small book and read it through. It took only a couple hours, and it was among the best couple hours that I have spent in recent memory. I was reminded of many arguments that I had already been familiar with, but a number of other arguments were introduced to me for the first time.
On beginning the book knowing that it had been written largely before the war began, one question was at the front of my thoughts: Would Hitchens still support the war today? Perceiving the nature and force of his arguments, my conclusion was that he certainly must. There is nothing that has happened since that has served to neutralize or invalidate his arguments. The foundational premise of his argumentation is that the Iraqi people were suffering mightily at the hands of Saddam Hussein and that they desperately needed and deserved liberation. However various official justifications might have turned out, the simple fact is that almost anything would have been better for them than continued life—if one could call it that—under their tyrant dictator.
Hitchen's little book on the Iraq war is both powerful and convincing though, no doubt, some are so cold and hardened by their partisanship that nothing will persuade them. His book, nevertheless, is a bold statement on the importance of fighting and winning the war. If you oppose the war, it will enrage you. If you support it, the book will comfort you. If you are wavering, it will give you much food for thought.
Comments