Q - ... In our day, can a politician rule by principle?A - It depends on what the principle is. If the principle is that all men are equal or created equal, I don’t think its possible to observe that principle in practice. But if the principle is, say, something cruder such as: can we coexist with aggressive internationalist totalitarian ideologies, then I think you not only can but you should act consistently against that. Never mind the principles for one minute, but the lesson of realism is: that if you don’t fight them now you fight them later.
Hitchens says this after earlier having expressed his considered opinion that "the Vietnam war was a war of aggression and atrocity and racism." But the politicians (most of them, anyway) who took us into the Vietnam war were of the sincere belief that they were attempting to block the further expansion of an undeniably "aggressive internationalist totalitarian" ideology, to wit, Communism. I wonder how Hitchens reconciles his adamant opposition, even in retrospect, to the Vietnam war, with his adamant support of the current war against islamo-fasicism? He ought to be feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance, at the very least. Perhaps it's just too difficult for him call into question the grounds for a sigificant portion of his intellectual development.
It might've been nice if I'd spelled 'islamo-fascism' correctly in post #12.
Agreed. Hitchen spouts the Leftist view of Vietnam, yet look at Vietnam in the aftermath of that war and today. South Vietnam fought on for its independence two years after our forces left. Upon victory, the North Vietnamese government killed tens of thousands, forced millions into reeducation camps, and caused hundreds of thousands to flee via the high seas. Today, we have a repressive Communist regime, motivated by an "aggressive internationalist totalitarian ideology," as our legacy. Ho Chi Minh was just as much a tyrant and murderer as Saddam.
I see I should've written 'significant', too. Bad typing night.