Aug 27 2005

Hitchens, Iraq And Bush

Published by at 12:31 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT,Iraq

I have been so swamped in Able Danger I have not had a chance to keep up on other issues or articles. On person I like to keep track of is Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is such a refreshing, unabashed, brilliant liberal one wonders why he is not more prominent than the Howard Deans and Michael Moores. Well, when you recall Hitchens also believes in the foundations of ‘The West’ and the danger posed to these foundations by Islamic Fanatics – it sadly makes sense why he is not a leading voice of the left.

My good friend and blogging mentor Mark Coffey is also a huge Hitch fan and provided me a much needed diversion through this post. If you are Hitchens fan like me stop by and check it out.

I think Mark needs to start a category just on articles by Hitchens – I think he has blogged just about everyone of them recently.


Something stuck out in this very good piece by Hitchens, which I think everyone should contemplate with our post 9-11 experiences:

The subsequent liberation of Pakistan’s theocratic colony in Afghanistan, and the so-far decisive eviction and defeat of its bin Ladenist guests, was only a reprisal. It took care of the last attack. But what about the next one? For anyone with eyes to see, there was only one other state that combined the latent and the blatant definitions of both “rogue” and “failed.” This state–Saddam’s ruined and tortured and collapsing Iraq–had also met all the conditions under which a country may be deemed to have sacrificed its own legal sovereignty. To recapitulate: It had invaded its neighbors, committed genocide on its own soil, harbored and nurtured international thugs and killers, and flouted every provision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United Nations, in this crisis, faced with regular insult to its own resolutions and its own character, had managed to set up a system of sanctions-based mutual corruption. In May 2003, had things gone on as they had been going, Saddam Hussein would have been due to fill Iraq’s slot as chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Meanwhile, every species of gangster from the hero of the Achille Lauro hijacking to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was finding hospitality under Saddam’s crumbling roof.

While Hitchens is pointing out how ridiculous and lame the international response to Hussein was, he alludes to another factor which is important. And for that we need to drop by Rick Moran’s Right Wing Nut House and an excellent post he did on Al Qaeda’s plans for 9-11, which was only step one of a multi phased effort (from a link provided by Rick to Spiegel On Line)

al Qaeda’s purported strategy can be broken down into seven “phases” which span from 2000 until 2020, at which time they believe the global Islamist Caliphate will be established and they will achieve “definitive victory.”

More from Rick himself

What’s remarkable about these phases is that so far, they have eerily followed what has happened in the Global War on Terror. For instance, the first phase known as “The Awakening” that was to last from 2000-2003 or more generally, from 9/11 to the fall of Baghdad, Islam was to have provoked the United States into fighting thereby “awakening” Muslims

The next phase is not going as planned

The second phase called “Opening eyes” is the period we’re in now and is scheduled to last until 2006:

  • Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
  • I have no doubt that our invasion and reconstruction in Iraq is causing Islamist recruits to pour into that country. The question is, what good is it doing?

    When you think about this over-arching plan and where Hussein’s Iraq was heading under UN ‘sanctions’ it is clear there was a real chance Hussein was vulneranle to a Islamo Fascist take over of his country by Al Qaeda. Under cripling sanctions and the huge success 9-11 appeared to be in the Arab world – the other path for Bin Laden’s plan to work was a Iraq that collapsed completely.

    In many ways, this is a much more frightening scenario than the path we took. At least we had major control concerning the path Iraq took and the partnership of the Iraqi’s who were freed from Saddam. They could have been freed by us or Al Qaeda – depending on our actions. And they would have aligned with those who freed them.

    The path the anti-war types keep wishing we took, I keep wondering if they have any idea what they are wishing for?

    2 responses so far

    2 Responses to “Hitchens, Iraq And Bush”

    1. Well, you’re too kind, once again…but I think I’ll take you up on your suggestion of starting a Hitch category…cheers!

    2. Patrick says:

      I saw Hitchens on the Daily Show, arguing those same points, and Jon Stewart pretty much wiped the floor with him. Also, you’re misinformed – he doesn’t consider himself to be leftist or liberal – in fact he dimisses any argument that doesn’t gibe with his as being “liberal” or “leftist”.