[lbo-talk] more Hitch

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Fri Sep 5 17:14:05 PDT 2003



> 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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list