> This was one of the better points Christopher Hitchens raised against
> the antiwar movement. Its concern for the Kurds seemed to stop with
> Saddam's having used poison gas against them, and the U.S. rewarded the
> guy with more weapons. I have no doubt that there were Kurdish-relief
> and Kurdish defense efforts within the movement, but for the most part,
> the antiwar movement didn't mobilize around this particular cause.
> (Hitchens got a lot of mileage out of a "true internationalist" stance;
> it wasn't hard to poke at the antiwar movement's platitudes, and as long
> as he stuck to internationalism, human rights, and opposition to
> theocratic fascism, he raised some good points. But his praise of the
> Bush Administration was pretty revolting; if I wanted to see a man
> pimping for state power, I'd read _Commentary_.)
If this is the best that Hitchens can throw against the anti-war movement, then he is truly lost in a conservative desert, desperately looking for a drink with a good argument printed on the label.
There are plenty of anti-war activists and leftist in general who are doing activism on behalf of the Kurds and other people around the world. The anti-war movement can't be all things to all people, after all, it's primary purpose for existing is to put a halt to US policies around the world. This goes back to Chomsky's answer to the right-wing canard that he doesn't speak out enough about human rights abuses by non-American countries: as a citizen of a country that is committing the worst abuses your focus has to be on stopping the policies of your country.
Hitchens should know better, because anti-war activists are busy raising all kinds of issues in addition to war. But he can't face this reality, because it would invalidate his need to be in the spotlight.
Chuck0