Hitchens: Hawks in the dovecote

kjkhoo at softhome.net kjkhoo at softhome.net
Sun Aug 25 07:15:11 PDT 2002


Nathan Newman wrote:
>There is indisputable evidence that most Kurds and Shia Iraqis would prefer
>the removal of Hussein and good evidence that many or most other Iraqis also
>resent his tyrranny.

The character of Saddam's regime apart, let's have some of this indisputable evidence.


>Whether they would all be better off in the chaos that would
>follow on his removal is worth debating, but whether they want
>his removal is not an open question.

Additionally, it would also be good to be given the evidence that, if they want his removal, (i) they want it done under American auspices; (ii) they want it regardless of the probable cost and consequences

Furthermore, I thought and think the basic issue at hand is American foreign policy and the right of Washington to decide when "regime change" is or is not needed, or desirable and when, or if, action will be taken to effect it; if so, then realpolitik does come into it. Of course it does. The character of Saddam's regime is not a new discovery. Just the other day, the NYT reported US intelligence assistance to Saddam 1980-88, including the use of gas.

By what criteria would someone choose to support or not support such "regime change"? Presumably, many, if not most, were and are opposed to that "regime change" effected 29 years ago come this September. If the criteria is "many or most" resent the regime in question, then such opposition would be misguided. On the other hand, if the criteria is the character of the regime, then we perhaps should all be supporting Washington-inspired "regime change" across the world based upon our political and ideological sympathies. In which case, it really does come down to might and influence.

I can decide that I think "regime change" in the US is most desirable. I may even be right, politically and morally. Does that make me right? Does that confer on me the right to take action to effect it? And if I so happen to have the might to so effect it?


>On the Kurds part, they've wanted different arrangements since
>the beginning of the century when they lost out on an
>independent Kurdistan.

It's almost a joke to discuss "regime change" in Iraq for reason of the Kurds when the Western world for the most part ignores what happens and has been happening in Turkey, etc.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list