No question that there’s a long road ahead. I just wish that the dear rosy-eyeballed pep-talkers of a couple years back had been more realistic and/or honest about that when making their predictions for the future.
Instead, what we got were cheery assurances that the Iraqis would welcome us, that their reconstruction would basically pay for itself with oil revenues, that they were a well-integrated secular society so we shouldn’t worry about sectarian clashes, that private enterprise would make Iraq a dynamic free-market economy, that the vibrant Iraqi democracy would be a beacon for fundamental change throughout the Middle East, and so on and so on and so on.
And when it’s pointed out that the situation we’ve got doesn’t much resemble what was advertised, the war hawks lash out with accusations of cowardice and negativity. Look, dudes, if you raised unrealistic expectations with your silly predictions, you’ve only got yourselves to blame when more rational people complain about failure to meet those expectations.
There is a serious danger of that. Next head of a snake to stomp upon. There will be many more. Important thing is to keep the democratic process going long enough, eventually there will be noticable improvement. Ensure elections, prevent abuses, make every vote count… that sort of thing.
As opposed to stable predictable violence of thugs in power?
If that turns out to be possible, I’d better damn well reduce my opinion of Orwell!
Although I share many of his views, to a large extent even on the Iraqi war, Christopher Hitchens has made a shameful spectacle of himself. It’s deplorable that he uses his extraordinary intellect for no better purpose than to be archly disingenuous while trying to score debating points rather than honestly and forthrightly addressing the issues involved.
Regarding that: We must remember that Hitchens’ opposition to the anti-U.S. forces in the Middle East and to war protestors in the West is not of the same character as Orwell’s opposition to Stalinism. Orwell was in the middle of a war of ideas – many British intellectuals and politicians of his time were actually sympathetic to Stalinism. Orwell set out to fight against that (without abandoning his commitment to a democratic-socialist Britain and world). But today, practically no non-Muslim in the U.S. or anywhere else is actually sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism (nor to Ba’athism, nor to any of the other factions making up the Iraq insurgency). Many question the wisdom and justice of the U.S.’ and UK’s actions in Iraq and in the GWAT, but that’s not at all the same thing as being an Islamsymp or Ba’athsymp.
I know this is an “old” post and hope I’m not violating any SDMB rules by referring to it.
It’s always frustrating to me when I read things like this. Since I’ve been a teenager I’ve been “concerned with ‘protection of all poor and oppressed, everywhere in the world.’” And that’s why I’m a libertarian/neocon. In fact I’d challenge the reader to go to any reputable libertarian site and see what you find. If the general theme is different than what I claim it will be I’d be surprised.
BTW, I was at the debate. It was very high energy, lots of excitement.
I’d love to hear Hitchens debate a competent libertarian like Thomas Sowell. No insults, just debate over socialism vs capitalism. I have a lot of respect for Hitchens but I disagree with him on economics.
:dubious: That is very intellectually dishonest. I used to be a libertarian myself, I think I know what it means. First of all, it’s flatly impossible to be both a libertarian and a neocon. It is possible to reconcile Marxism with the idea of aggressive wars to spread socialism. It is not possible to reconcile libertarianism with the idea of aggressive wars to spread liberty. Aggressive wars are still aggressive wars and they require huge governments with huge, expensive military establishments and the mobilization of a significant part of the national economy for a state-managed war effort – all totally un-libertarian. Second, being a libertarian means being committed to the libertarian vision of “freedom” even when that is really bad for the poor – because in the scale of values, freedom is at the top.
I don’t think it’s intellectually dishonest at all. I actually resent the statement, but not that much, as I doubt that I know you or you know me. You’ve chosen a few things which you find inconsistent and then accuse me of dishonesty. I have no problem seeing myself on the neocon end of the libertarian continuum or vv. We could argue for years about what different groups really believe and get further and further away from the major point.
Anyway, what about the major point? Can you find a systematic lack of caring for the poor on any legitimate libertarian or neocon website?
On the website of the Project for a New American Century, it’s hard to find anything that reflects any overriding concern for the poor. The Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) speaks of spreading “economic freedom,” which is not the same thing at all, at all. As for the Libertarian Party, see here: http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml
Don’t give me that disengenuous crap. You know who I’m talking about – and they are your enemies (and mine, and Galloway’s on general principles), even if you voted for them.
My point was, Galloway’s apologias for the Syrian government are not all like those of Orwell’s contemporaries for Stalin’s government. Galloway no more wants to live under a Ba’athist regime than you or I do; he just wants something to use against Blair. I wouldn’t go so far as he has, I can’t imagine myself praising Assad for any reason, but I can understand the impulse. It’s the exact same kind of impulse that drives Hitchens to defend Israel.
BTW, if Galloway is a “Stalinist” as Sam seems to think, the RESPECT The Unity Coalition he leads is not. Its policies are moderate for a leftist party in Britain or anywhere in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESPECT_Unity_Coalition#Policies
Ah. So if it’s just anti-Blair positioning, perhaps you can explain his support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? And his opposition to the U.S. invasion of the same country? Or his toadying for Saddam all through the 90’s?
Galloway is predictable. If there’s a conflict between any free country and a totalitarian state, Galloway will take the side of the totalitarian. The only time he opposed Saddam was when Saddam was trying to cozy up to the west.