The Hitchens vs. Danner Smackdown Part II

I just finished watching the second Hitchens vs. Danner debate, click here to do so for yourself. I watched the first one in person before the war and it was interesting to hear if opinions had changed.

For those that don't know Christopher Hitchens is a very bright intellectual with a ton of facts at his finger tips. He's been studying and writing about politicts, foreign policy and all kinds of things for a long time. He even wrote a book on Mother Teresa and frequently manages quick and witty come backs. Of Hitchens, one of my friends said "He's just too clever for his own good" and thats because he can present such well reasoned arguments you'll find yourself following and believing his train of thought until at once you realize you completely disagree with his conclusion. Then you feel tricked and apt to not trust his arguments any more. Danner is also intelligent and well read, written and traveled. However Danner does not present that "snobbish intellectual" front that Hitchens sometimes does.

So basically it went exactly the way I thought. Hitchens still saying "it was justified - we had to do it" and Danner saying "Its a huge mess, I told you so and the US government is going to have a really hard, if not impossible time fixing it".

Danner spared Hitchens the embarasement of reminding him of his predictions of a very quick shock and awe victory followed in quick succession by democracy. It would be interesting to go back and listen to the original debate.

My conclusions are:

• a) I don't believe Hitchens premise that this was the only route the USA could take, and that they had to take it.
• b) I believe Danner's statements on how dangerous it is right now, and how hopeless the USA's efforts to restore relative safety are.
• c) Pulling out is not an option and because of b) there will be a protracted, very bloody and very expensive military occupation of Iraq.
• d) Even if the government sticks with it, the American people will tire of the cost of keeping, or trying to keep peace in Iraq long before the government does. This will probably lead to some very unfortunate consequences.
• e) I just don't buy Hitchens assertion that the American people are safer now than they were. The escalation of hatred towards the USA and the race to acquire nuclear arms by small nations are very concrete indications that big stick policies don't work. You reap what you sow...
• f) The palpable deception of the American people over pretty much every fact relating to this invasion was disgusting and I didn't even hear Hitchens say "yes, but it was necessary". It has only helped to bring the American government into ill-repute.

I have thought all along that the USA should have been using its power to enforce the UN as a just and reliable enforcer of world peace and router of tyrants who cause genocide and commit other crimes against humanity. However it is clear to me that only the "eye for an eye" tactic for "peace keeping" is currently in vogue. Unfortunately we know from so many, many conflict situations around the world that tit-for-tat violence leads nowhere but a bloody spiral down...

The people of Iraq deserve better. Saddam was an evil saddistic tyrant, but he's still out there and many immitators have rushed in to fill the void. No, I didn't have any great plan to get him out of power and to stop the blood letting at home. But I would have found a compromise to get UN backing and support, and I would have been upfront with the true cost and arrange for a large enough force and sufficient forward planning to make the road to stability, peace and independence again a smoother one.

But ultimately is the USA or even the combined efforts of the UN even in a position to consider such benevolance towards every country that is suffering under the remaining tyrants of the world? Their efforts in Afghanistan clearly show that UN involvement alone is not sufficient and that billions of dollars does not even come close to the true cost of peace. If we want to buy peace for every country that threatens us or does not meet up to our expectatins of democracy imagine that it will be tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars that are required. and will peace that is bought ever be lasting? Somehow I doubt it. There are probably easier but much slower ways to achieve world peace. They may require patience, diplomacy and nerves of steel. But witness the crumbling of the Soviet Union as a case in point. Or the brokered peace in Northern Ireland.

Right now America is clearly following a foreign policy that is threatening, ambiguous and dangerous around the world. People asked "why do they hate us?" after 9/11, and I'm sure a great number of people still ask themselves that question. I don't think we'll ever be able to rest easy at home until the majority of Americans understand why agressive, preemptive, unilateral foreign policies are the touchstone of resentment and hatred. Unfortunately that may be a long time coming for America and the world as a whole, we only have to look at our internal situation to realize that. But that's a whole different story...