In Slate, Christopher Hitchens takes a clear-eyed view of what's at stake in Iraq:
There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy. I think that those who supported regime change should confront the idea of defeat, and what it would mean for Iraq and America and the world, every day... How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality?
He makes another good point towards the end. As civic leaders in Iraq struggle to build a decent society, why aren't American cities [and British ones too, for that matter] making even small gestures of support. How about twinning with Baghdad?
For day after day last month I could not escape the news of the gigantic "Live 8" enterprise, which urged governments to do more along existing lines by way of debt relief and aid for Africa. Isn't there a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq, after three decades of tyranny, war, and sanctions and now an assault from the vilest movement on the face of the planet? Unless someone gives me a persuasive reason to think otherwise, my provisional conclusion is that the human rights and charitable "communities" have taken a pass on Iraq for political reasons that are not very creditable.
Comments