Fallujah, by Christopher Hitchens

Wall Street Journal ^ | April 2, 2004 | CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

[OESY]

There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair. The mob could have cooked and eaten its victims without making things very much worse. One especially appreciated the detail of the heroes who menaced the nurses, when they came to try and remove the charred trophies.

[OESY]

Hitchens raises some important questions.

[Support Free Republic]

---

Don't cry .. The Freepers will save us from John Kerry
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Migraine]

I am always grateful whenever a lefty shows even a modicum of objectivity and candor. It's refreshing because it is so very rare. He's still a lefty; but at least he calls this one as he sees it; and he sees it very clearly. Thanks, Hitch.

[CatoRenasci]

Bump for an intellectually honest (usually) lefty. At least as to the War and the American Left, Hitchens gets it.

[alloysteel]

There are those who say, that by directing our attention to Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists, we are diverting resources from the War on Terror.

No such thing. Iraq is part and parcel of the War on Terror, a seedbed from which even more terror would spring if left unchecked. The sweep through Iraq is analogous to cutting away the dead timber and dry vegetation, removing it BEFORE it catches flame from the nearby fires. And once having established a relatively safe zone, there are still smaller conflagrations breaking out. When the massive threat is reduced, it is possible to face and control these smaller outbreaks as they occur.

As to Fallujah, this region is still very nearly a combat zone, and should be treated as hostile. A cordon drawn up around the city, with no supplies allowed in or communications allowed out, will consolidate the situation pretty rapidly. Though there may be a certain sentiment to "Nuke 'em until they glow, and shoot 'em in the dark", probably the vast majority of the inhabitants of Fallujah are non-combatants, and most probably wish dearly for the situation to go away. Allow a steady stream of these hapless citizens the opportunity to leave, as the supplies within the city dwindle (if they are not shot in the back by the guerrillas as they leave), and settle them outside the city in a tent camp. When the city is pretty much occupied only by the remaining armed insurgents, that would perhaps the time for a couple of MOAB units to be dropped strategically, then issue a call for surrender. The sound of one further gunshot from within the zone would be the signal to send in a couple more MOAB units, and repeat the request for surrender.

Even in Mosel they will get the message. It may not reach the DNC, however.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Fallujah is not a place for American civilians unless they're inside an APC or tank.

[Polybius]

There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair.

In one of Goya's "The Horrors of War" etchings, Goya depicts the mutilated bodies of war dead with the sarcastic caption:

"Great deeds! ...... Against the dead!"

There is no need to fall into despair when faced with an enemy that dares to perform "great deeds" only when confronted by a dead man.

[nathanbedford]

The bad guys who actually killed are probably already miles gone.

[nuconvert]

"Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?"
"their general view seems to be that Iraq was an elective target; a country that would not otherwise have been troubling our sleep."

Right. As terrorists and terrorism is viewed now; they're not bothering us very much, so why get involved in a big to-do? The Clinton philosophy.

"Credit belongs to those who accepted -- can we really decently say pre-empted? -- this long-term responsibility"

"Fallujah is a reminder, not just of what Saddamism looks like, or of what the future might look like if we fail, but of what the future held before the Coalition took a hand."

Exactly.

[Rummyfan]

Bump for later read.

[schu]

Great article, but agreeing with Hitchens sometimes makes one feel a bit soiled. ;-).

I was reading last night (a good reminder) about the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the refugees, the death and most horrifying, the Khmer Rouge and the absolute genocide perpetrated on the people of SE Asia. Much of this was the result of our unwillingness to confront and defeat evil. Africa has the same legacy and Iraq and the Middle East are not too far behind.

Our efforts may not be elegant, but Hitchen’s point that we stopped the inevitable is a valid one.

[Tribune7]

Good column

[reflecting]

bump

[McGavin999]

Perhaps not elegant, but then war is never elegant. Considering the task we have pulled off minor miracles.

[WOSG]

This is Civilization versus Barbarism.

Fallujah is a reminder of which folks are on which side, as if we hadnt already knew. Many opponents of the Iraq war want us to forget the truth.

[headsonpikes]

One really wonders what the neo-isolationist Right makes of Hitchin's account, other than as a clever neo-Trotskyite NeoCon propaganda piece.

It ought to be embarrassing to be out-shone in loyalty to one's history by a leftist.

One would think.

[swheats]

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Well at least he's asking the right questions. When I hear him criticizing the Bush Admin, his point of view is worth a second look.

[prognostigaator]

"I debate,"Hitchens says," with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered.

Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not?

Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea ( the Kay report) as late as last March?

Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?"

Qustions that never get answered, indeed.

[Jalapeno]

It's becoming more and more plain that the moral high ground is held by those who concluded, from the events of 1991, that it was a mistake to leave Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait.

I at the time thought Bush #1 made the right decision. It is obvious now it was a mistake to not go all the way to Baghdad in ways that could not even be concieved of back then. In the end it only set the stage for what would become this war on terror. I think Bush #1 was trying to appease the Arabs to come to the table with Israel, which worked. But since we then experience our own 'regime change' every 4- yrs, the reasons and motivations for those decisions were lost.

Of course, my hindsight is 20/20 as always. It's the one thing I am good at. If you want last week's LOTTO numbers, I can get them for you.