-OK, I'm trying to understand. The U.S. 'runs a political slum in the -region,' which generates the preconditions for 9-11, but then attacks a part -it didn't run, and which doesn't have Al Qaeda--except perhaps in the Kurdish -area--to clear up the slum?
Hitchens point is that just as the Left argues that Al Quaeda is almost besides the point, since even if we destroyed them to a man, there are more where they came from, the neoconservative pro-warhawks can argue that the problem is the coddling of dictators throughout the Middle East regime. Democratize Iraq and it puts pressure on and weakens Saudi Arabia and Pakistan dictators.
You may not buy their good faith intentions to democratize Iraq or their ability to do so, but the argument Hitch outlines is as coherent as the alternative left argument of addressing the root causes of poverty and hopelessness. In fact, they converge, as Hitch notes to the discomfort of the neoconservatives, in having to address the plight of the Palestinians. In the article, if you notice, Hitch is pushing his analysis not just hitting the Left but pointing out to the Right that their own logic forces attention towards dismantling the settlements and moving towards real peace in Palestine.
Now, I don't buy that the neocon democrats either run the show or are all-together serious, but the argument is appealing to many liberal supporters of the war. So if folks don't acknowledge and respond to a pretty clear argument, the Left has little chance of convincing them to oppose intervention.
Merely yelling "oil" at every turn is unconvcincing to folks who can say, sure that's a side benefit, but the real goal is something else. If you can't knock down the "real goal" on its own terms, they'll never believe the oil argument.
-- Nathan Newman