Hitch on Hardball

[RE]

Hitchens swings wildly along the humanitarian/Progress continuum.
At one end he's willing to advocate military intervention to aid threatened
groups, as in Kurdistan, Bosnia, East Timor, and those writings were good.
The other involves a "That's progress, folks!" mode, and then his analysis
of imperialism flops.  I first noticed this several years ago in a Nation
column
when he dismissed Native American claims against the feds as ridiculous,
saying something like, "that's history, people get conquered.  Live with
it," and sought support in Marx's writings on British imperialism and Indian
society.   Having decided that the enemy is "Islamic fascism," and bourgeois
democracy must be defended, he inclines to critical support of the US and
necessarily becomes more tolerant of collateral damage and oil grabbing.
I'm
puzzled, though, by his seeming to blow off the UN.  Does he see them as
Osama-huggers?
Randy


> In a sense, I think Hitchens has always been a right-winger,
> but has just been slow about coming to himself.  The curious
> thing, if any, is that it has taken him so long.  There are
> lots of people like that, and I don't understand the big
> deal that is made about them.
>
> -- Gordon
>
>
>