|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: International Relations |
|
Christopher Hitchens: From Anti-Imperialist to Neocon |
Current rating: 0 |
by Anthony DiMaggio
Email: ardimag (nospam) ilstu.edu (verified) |
12 Oct 2005
|
|
This article recaps Hitchens transformation to a pro-war fascist and ideologue. |
Christopher Hitchens: The Anti-Imperialist Turned Neocon
By Anthony DiMaggio
I recently had a chance to see Christopher Hitchens speak, although I can certainly say the event will not go down as one of the high points in my intellectual development. Ever caustic and pompous, Hitchens never fails to bully and insult those with whom he disagrees, relying on a circular style of logic (or more realistically, illogic) in which he consistently dodges serious criticisms of his pro-war arguments, while demonizing his critics with a contempt for dissent that fits well within the neoconservative circle he has become affiliated. Such behavior should not be all that surprising, as Hitchens has joined a long list of right-wing pundits who prefer insults and name calling over genuine intellectual debate.
While Hitchens doesn’t like to be labeled a neoconservative, he strongly identifies with conservative pro-war figures such as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the Bush administration. As a writer for Vanity Fair and Slate, he has come out in recent years in favor of the “humanitarian intervention” policy of the Bush administration against enemies such as the former Ba’ath regime of Saddam Hussein. Hitchens has become the subject of much criticism amongst the American Left today, particularly in light of his bitter attacks on well-known anti-war figures such as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and British MP George Galloway. His pro-war positions have surprised many people in the anti-war movement, as he was formerly known as an opponent of the first Bush administration’s 1991 Gulf War, as well as a prominent critic of American imperialism in Vietnam and elsewhere, as seen in his classic 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.
At one time, Hitchens took a principled stand against American imperialism. His book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, gained popular attention for good reason, as it was a superb analysis of the war crimes in which Henry Kissinger (as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor) was responsible during the Vietnam War. Hitchens implicated Kissinger in a number of crimes: including his half-hearted “support” for Kurdish rebellion against the Iraqi Ba’ath party from 1974-75 (after which the Kurds were abandoned upon the signing of the Algiers security agreement between Iraq and Iran in 1975), Kissinger’s role in the military overthrow of democratically elected and Left-leaning Chilean President Salvador Allende, and the subsequent rise of General Augusto Pinochet to power (who was responsible for the murder of thousands of Chilean dissidents during his rule from 1973-1989), and finally, Kissinger’s support for the Indonesian government’s acts of genocide against the inhabitants of the small island of East Timor in Southeast Asia.
Sadly, the intensity of Hitchens’ attacks on state officials of yesteryear is easily equaled by his vilification of the anti-war movement today. Slowly but surely, Hitchens has become reliant on fascistic rhetoric in his vilification of those who question the “humanitarianism” of a presidential administration responsible not only for the mistreatment and torture of Iraqis, but for the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. Predictably, his criticisms of the anti-war movement rely on a pattern of half-truths, distortion, and misinformation, in order to defend what has increasingly become an unpopular military occupation on both sides of the Atlantic.
Hitchens on the Iraq War
Hitchens takes issue with the “No War in Iraq” slogan, which he believes “conceal[s] the silly or sinister idea that we have no quarrel with Saddam Hussein.” He explains in his book The Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, that, “I decided some time ago that I was, brain and heart, on the side of the ‘regime change’ position.” There are three primary reasons Hitchens provides in support of “humanitarian” war: 1. the “flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law of genocide and human rights”; 2. the “persistent efforts by Saddam’s dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide”; and 3. “the involvement of the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization.” But the unlikelihood that Iraq will be “liberated” and “democratized” by the very same people in the Bush administration who supported Saddam Hussein through the worst of his crimes against humanity is something Hitchens would rather ignore, for obvious reasons. Such support dates back to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, which financed Hussein with billions of dollars in aid at a time when he was guilty of killing thousands of Kurds through the use of such horrible weapons of mass destruction that the Bush II administration, until recently, condemned Saddam for possessing (oddly enough, these were the same weapons happily supplied by past administrations when Saddam Hussein was an American ally). Having dismissed the implications of the United States’ cynical political and economic support for the despot, Hitchens speaks optimistically about the potential for a ripple effect in the Middle East, in which American intervention in Iraq may ignite a further democratization of other countries in the region, explaining that, “it is true that the Pentagon’s intellectuals hope for a domino effect from the collapse of Saddam Hussein, extending through Iran and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Egypt. The worst thing I can say about this is that I devoutly hope it’s true.” However, this statement reveals a serious naiveté to the policy motivations of the Bush administration that is all too typical in the pro-war punditry. As even the Bush administration admitted shortly after the invasion, “the [Iraq] war was about far more than just Iraq” – the war was merely “the first step in a new strategy” intending that “the United States would never allow American military supremacy to be challenged [today] in the way it was during the cold war.”
Although Hitchens would vigilantly deny it, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he is guilty of Orwellian doublethink, particularly in his hypocritical and contradictory explanations of U.S. foreign policy goals. In one instance, Hitchens congratulates the Bush administration for pursuing a “very noble and risky and worthwhile enterprise” of democratizing Iraq – which is supposedly “the only responsible course” for the future. Concurrently, Hitchens speaks of the “confrontation with Saddam is driven by the oil oligarchy,” further postulating that “who seriously believes oil isn’t worth fighting [a war] about?” But Hitchens cannot have it both ways. Either the United States is unconditionally committed to justice, human rights, and democratization in the Middle East (outside of self-interested aspirations for petro-dominance), or it is interested primarily in controlling Iraq’s oil reserves, not for reconstruction of this war-torn country, but to line the pockets of Western oil companies. As George Orwell admitted (someone Hitchens is fond of quoting), imperialism is, by nature, an undemocratic force.
Hitchens on Anti-War Dissent
Watching Hitchens speak, it is clear that he has a genuine hate for the anti-war movement. This is all the more reason that he fits so well into the pro-war corporate punditry today. Hitchens has called anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore a “silly and shady man” who produces works of “stupidity and cowardice.” He has called Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, a “flat-out phony,” while attacking Moore personally for “spouting fascistic nonsense” in his attacks on the Bush administration and the Iraq war. But Hitchens doesn’t stop there; he implicates the entire anti-war movement in supporting Saddam Hussein. Hitchens elaborates: “if you examine the record of the so-called the anti-war movement in this country and imagine what would have happened had its counsel been listened to over the last 15 and more years, you would have a world in which the following would be the case…Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait, he would have succeeded in the annexation, not merely the invasion, but the abolition of an Arab and Muslim state that was a member of the Arab League and of the United Nations… Now if I had that record politically, I would be extremely modest, I wouldn't be demanding explanations from those of us who said it’s about time that we stop this continual capitulation to dictatorship, to racism, to aggression and to totalitarian ideology.”
Hitchens’s desire to silence protestors from sharing anti-war views makes one wonder exactly what type of “free society” he has in mind for Iraq, considering that he lacks even a minimal level of support for dissent at home. To take seriously his loose use of the word “fascist” to describe Americans exercising free speech rights protected under the First amendment would be to threaten democratic ideals that promote freedom of thought through the open exchange of often ideas. Many opponents of the war have wondered what reason(s) Hitchens could possibly have for such a radical shift from the anti-war movement into the pro-war camp. Why, for example, does he choose to frame Henry Kissinger as a vile, repressive imperialist, while at the same time portraying Paul Wolfowtiz as the benevolent liberator of Iraq, especially in light of recent revelations that the U.S. has relied on torture and mass detainment in Iraq, and in light of U.S. responsibility for tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths? Unfortunately, Hitchens has provided little more than superficial answers so far. As I saw him speak at Illinois State University, I sat in awe of his amazing ability to worm his way out of legitimate questions, as he proceeded to discount criticisms of the Bush administration’s past support for Saddam as little more than “boring” or “irrelevant” attempts to obscure the issue of Iraq’s “liberation.”
In his attempted marginalization of past support for Hussein on the part of many members of the Bush administration, Hitchens arguments boil down to little more than a “that’s why pencils have erasers” kind of logic, in which he faults anti-war groups for allegedly claiming that, “because the United States was wrong before, it cannot possibly be right now, or has no right to be right.” Such a statement gives one pause to wonder whether Hitchens believes that members of the Reagan and Bush I administrations should be held accountable at all for their support for this criminal. This is, after all, not an issue of “the entire United States” being wrong before, and correcting its mistake now; rather, it’s about a small elite of political leaders who shamelessly supported Saddam Hussein, and continue to support other despots in the region to this day. These are the same people in office today who were enthusiastic supporters of Saddam Hussein years ago. What specific religious or moral catharsis would allow the Bush administration’s neocons to oppose Saddam Hussein on humanitarian grounds today, while at the very same time support repressive regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and Turkey? And if Saddam Hussein really is evil, what in the world does that make Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other neocons who were complicit in his evil acts and who cynically used the memories of those he killed to pursue their own selfish political and economic policies?
It’s of little use asking Hitchens such critical questions. Like most reactionaries in the corporate media, his answers are more representative of the desperation of someone who lacks competent and convincing answers than someone who has genuinely thought provoking answers. But then again, what else should one expect from the pro-war media?
Anthony DiMaggio teaches Middle East Politics and American Government at Illinois State University, and is the editor of The Indy newspaper, based in Illinois. |
This work is in the public domain |
