[lbo-talk] more Hitch

[Doug Henwood]

>        HITCHENS: He did come out, in a way, to meet this point in 
>his speech in St. Louis, surely, where he said it's a matter of 
>fighting them there or fighting them elsewhere, including here. 
>Remember, the point about the war against militant Islam is that it 
>wants to fight on our turf. Now we've taken it to theirs. Who would 
>say that was a bad idea? They don't get to pick where the war is 
>now, as they used to be able to.
>        MATTHEWS: How does that become a deterrent to them coming here?
>        HITCHENS: Well, there's a very incautious column by Paul 
>Krugman in this morning's "New York Times" which I recommend to you. 
>He says the administration always used to say that the Iraq was 
>allied with Islamic terrorists. Well, it is now, as if, he says, - 
>he definitely implies if it wasn't before. What, in fact, this 
>proves is that the assertion that Saddam Hussein was in bed with the 
>jihad forces was always true.
>        MATTHEWS: How is that proven?
>        HITCHENS: It's very important. Well, because...
>        MATTHEWS: How does it prove it?
>        HITCHENS: Because the country is full of them. Because 
>the-not full, but it's been heavily infiltrated not that recently by 
>them because the Fedayeen Saddam was a force made up to fight the 
>coalition originally out of volunteers from...
>        MATTHEWS: How does stirring up a fight with...
>        HITCHENS: ... the jihad forces-this relationship between 
>Saddam and these gangs did not begin yesterday.
>        MATTHEWS: How does this-logically, Christopher, how does the 
>stirring up of a firefight with a series of differing Islamic groups 
>from secular to the more zealous religious crowd over there in Iraq 
>forestall them from carrying out the same sorts of attacks on this 
>country?
>        HITCHENS: Well, It keeps them...
>        MATTHEWS: Would it done before 9/11?
>        HITCHENS: It keeps them busy, and though I think...
>        MATTHEWS: Does it?
>        HITCHENS: ... I think the administration doesn't like to 
>assume the casualties it inflicts in Iraq, because it is reminded 
>too much of the body count idea. This also goes to your point about 
>the terrible, steady loss of American forces. The-they're losing 
>very heavily, these people.
>        They're losing a lot of people every day, the other side, and 
>that's important. The second thing is they're making enormous 
>political mistakes. Look what they have just done in Najaf. They 
>just made an attack on one of the holiest shrines of Shiah Islam. 
>They have also just totally alienated the United Nations...
>        MATTHEWS: How-let me give you a parallel...
>        (CROSSTALK)
>        HITCHENS: The U.N. which was indulging them...
>        MATTHEWS: ... the English operation of Ireland-the English 
>occupation of Northern Ireland and Ireland before it, did that stop 
>violence by the IRA against London? No. It didn't stop it.
>        HITCHENS: It did...
>        MATTHEWS: It encouraged it.
>        HITCHENS: Well, no. It has actually taught them-it took a 
>long time. I lived in London during that period. It took a very long 
>time, but now the IRA has realized it can't win that way. That was 
>about a soldier a day too for a very long time, and half of those 
>civilians as well. What...
>        (CROSSTALK)
>        MATTHEWS: Well, the British have also understood that they 
>can't win the war...
>        HITCHENS: What is the alternative? To say-the alternative is 
>that you concede to these forces a very important, very rich, very 
>strategic country where the majority of the population still regards 
>the American presence as its deliverance, not just from the fascism 
>from Saddam...
>        MATTHEWS: OK.
>        HITCHENS: ... but from the nightmare of fundamentalism too.