Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
What I gather from watching clips of Hitchens defending his position in support of the War in Iraq, is that he saw two evils brought together in the 9-11 event . . . radical islam’s madness versus the corporate takeover of democratic rule (largely represented by the Bush Administration). I think he saw this as an either/or situation and he sided with the lesser of two evils, not because he intellectually supported the corporate agenda of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, but because he knew that Islamic influence/rule had to be opposed by every means possible.
I don’t think he could ever clearly see that those who were against the War in Iraq were not, by implication, soft on islammic dictatorships. Perhaps at that moment Hitchens could not conceive how someone could be against both the corporatization of government AND the islammification of government. Perhaps he was not as optimistic as he thought himself to be, and perhaps the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other Arab nations in 2011 at least partially reinforced the idea (or presented the hope) that democracies can indeed be created from a grassroots momentum, even in the face of horrific dictatorships.
It would be interesting to know how Hitchens felt on the possibility of an American led war with Iran? Would he also support the potential destruction of that islammic dictatorship or was he picking out Saddam Hussein in particular at that point in world history? (I’ll have to see what Hitchens says about Iran, I’m sure he’s written or spoken about it.)
What I gather from watching clips of Hitchens defending his position in support of the War in Iraq, is that he saw two evils brought together in the 9-11 event . . . radical islam’s madness versus the corporate takeover of democratic rule (largely represented by the Bush Administration). I think he saw this as an either/or situation and he sided with the lesser of two evils, not because he intellectually supported the corporate agenda of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, but because he knew that Islamic influence/rule had to be opposed by every means possible.
I don’t think he could ever clearly see that those who were against the War in Iraq were not, by implication, soft on islammic dictatorships. Perhaps at that moment Hitchens could not conceive how someone could be against both the corporatization of government AND the islammification of government. Perhaps he was not as optimistic as he thought himself to be, and perhaps the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other Arab nations in 2011 at least partially reinforced the idea (or presented the hope) that democracies can indeed be created from a grassroots momentum, even in the face of horrific dictatorships.
It would be interesting to know how Hitchens felt on the possibility of an American led war with Iran? Would he also support the potential destruction of that islammic dictatorship or was he picking out Saddam Hussein in particular at that point in world history? (I’ll have to see what Hitchens says about Iran, I’m sure he’s written or spoken about it.)
I have heard him in old interviews saying that he believes the situation in Iran to be somewhat different to that of Iraq and that there are many pro-western young people there who would support a western style democracy if given the chance in time.
Not sure if his view changed in more recent times.
I have heard him in old interviews saying that he believes the situation in Iran to be somewhat different to that of Iraq and that there are many pro-western young people there who would support a western style democracy if given the chance in time.
Not sure if his view changed in more recent times.
PBS travel host, Rick Steves, did an episode in Iran. He stressed how friendly the people were. I think you can watch the full episode at this site. (Scroll down and click on the Iran episode).
Yes, Hitchens support for military voyeurism in Iraq to oust Saddam and try and build a democracy is one opinion in how to stabilize the Muslim Middle East and ensure a peaceful future. Most of us here disagree with that Bush Doctrine type of approach, but it is a valid one, whether one agrees with it or not.
Personally, to be a polemic in the shadow of a once greater one I think the idea is stupidity on parade, but….that’s just me.
I am currently listening to an anthology of Hitch’s essays/magazine articles. He visited many Middle Eastern countries and was charmed by the people, esp. in Iran. Because of the prolonged war with Iraq in which so many young men were killed, women were encouraged to have as many children as possible. They did, and now a very large percentage of the population is under 30. They are quite different from the elders because they have had access to the Internet, etc. There is a revolution waiting to happen.
Anyway, I think his warm feelings toward the Iraqi people may have influenced him to support the war. He really depised Saddam. Not sure, though, because I am only midway through the book.
One thing is certain. Hitch was a bright guy who knew a lot of things about a lot of subjects.
I am currently listening to an anthology of Hitch’s essays/magazine articles. He visited many Middle Eastern countries and was charmed by the people, esp. in Iran. Because of the prolonged war with Iraq in which so many young men were killed, women were encouraged to have as many children as possible. They did, and now a very large percentage of the population is under 30. They are quite different from the elders because they have had access to the Internet, etc. There is a revolution waiting to happen.
Anyway, I think his warm feelings toward the Iraqi people may have influenced him to support the war. He really depised Saddam. Not sure, though, because I am only midway through the book.
One thing is certain. Hitch was a bright guy who knew a lot of things about a lot of subjects.
Saralynn, are you reading ‘Arguably’ which was published not long before he passed away? I enjoyed it. There was a lot in there that I had never read. In fact I only really became aware of Hitch when I started to get online to talk about atheism in forums like PR. But his writing goes back a long way and I had missed most of it so I was glad to get my hands on Arguably. And you’re right, he knew a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff. And what a writer/essayist/commentator!
