HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

In what is otherwise a pretty decent column, Christopher Hitchens says the following:

If there is a sectarian war in Iraq today, or perhaps several sectarian wars, we have to understand that this was latent in the country, and in the state, and in the society all along. It was not the only possible outcome, because it had to be willed and organized, but it was certainly high on the list of probabilities. (The Saddam Hussein regime, which thrived on the worst form of "divide and rule," certainly represented a standing invitation to run this risk.)

In other words, those who now deplore and decry the "civil war" (or the "civil wars") must, in order to be serious, admit that they would have deplored such an outcome just as much if it had not happened on America's watch or had (like Rwanda) been something that we could have pretended to watch as disinterested or—even worse—uninterested spectators.

Why he thinks there is anyone who deplores this civil war but not others is beyond me. Take, for example, the "anti-war" left. They are certainly against other civil wars; what else would calling them anti-war mean? And the part of the left that is always agitating for human rights? They too would without question oppose other versions of the same civil war.

Thinking back to the political battle over Kosovo may help clarify my point here. It was the Clinton administration, with the support of those on the political left, that argued for intervention. It was the political right, and most notably, the neo-conservative political right, that fought them at every step.

Same goes for Rwanda and Sudan.

For the record, I realize that in this column Hitch is clearly taking aim at the neo-cons. But given his focus here on word choice and the use of the passive voice, it would have helped had he been a bit more clear on this point.