Machiavelli in Mesopotamia (Hitchens makes the case for "regime change" in Iraq.)

And thank God for contrarians who generate the 'opposition' point of view that keeps a democracy vibrant. Without freedom to be contrary, ours would fall into some monolithic state governed by an unopposed oligarchy. Give Hitch his due, he is an honest and vocal opposition with whom debate may occur, to resolve our own shortcomings while building our resolve. Labeling Hitchens as a Trotskyite is wasted rhetoric. He agrees with that characterization as his foundation, but he has evolved even as he has maintained a contrarian perspective which exposes the perfidy of our leaders. Do you doubt his proofs of the Kissinger/Nixononian cabals against, for instance, Chile?

Having just watched the C-Span program to which you alerted us, let me say thanks. It was an interesting program. Did you also get to watch, and do you have comments to share regarding the apparent agreement between Sullivan and Hitchens over war with the Iraqi dictator? (Hitch mentioned that we ought be careful to clarify our war as with Saddam, not the Iraqi people, and Sullivan gareed completely.)

I just caught the last 15 minutes (I live on the West Coast, it's hard to be up that early)

Containment of the Soviet Union took 70 years or so. I'm willing to spend 70 years housebreaking the Arabs, but in the end, it took a massive amount of pressure and courage to topple the communists.

I suspect the bush administration hopes that jacking up the pressure a notch at a time will implode Saddam. Even if we quit now, there are 100,000 Iraqis no longer in prison. Hasn't that been worth the effort?

Hitchens is OK, I just wish he didn't have to be so moralistically superior about everything.

It goes with the leftist territory (not that there aren't examples of moralistic smugness on the right, but I think they're different in character). [Not a comment on Hitchens or this article, but there's an irony in that the left's moralism ends up being used to justify immoral means and leads ultimately to immoral ends, while the invisible hand of capitalism and its foundation of individual self-interest lead to better lives in a better society.]

Hitchens' position is understandable on a personal level, as well as being consistent with his politics. As he made clear in his final article in The Nation, friends of his were tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein. Hitchens has described eloquently the brutality of Saddam Hussein's Iraq; Hussein has wrenched his society apart in much the same way Stalin did.

But this is not what pre-emptive action is really about, and it is not what is bringing us to war. Pre-emption is about protecting the rest of the world from Iraq's predation, from weapons of mass destruction and from secret, covert, untraceable attacks.

Hitchens' position is, in fact, the position that I would have expected the left to be taking in general: supporting the war, but ultimately for the wrong reason. It is scandalous that most of the left is simply winking at Saddam Hussein -- whether out of naivete or out of fear, or from misguided short-term political calculations. At least Hitchens doesn't fall into this category.

I do think that Hitchens' analysis is flawed. I'm not convinced that Iraq is the "keystone" here. It is serving more like a foundation, providing support for Islamic terrorists (as well as being dangerous in its own right), and part of the reason for military action is to knock this support out from underneath the terrorists. But that's different from a keystone; Iraq is, unfortunately, likely to be only our next step in a long war.

I also don't quite understand Hitchens' theory of military action just so that we'll be there when Saddam Hussein falls of his own weight. I don't believe that Hussein is about to fall of his own weight, but, if he were, and if regime change were the only goal, we would simply let it happen. The fact is that regime change in and of itself is not the only goal, or even the major goal; the true aim is to prevent covert attacks from his regime or any successor, as well as to undermine Iraq's support for terrorist activity.

No one can control the consequences of Saddam's removal any more than they could control the consequences of Archduke Franz Ferdinand's removal in 1914.

You're right about that, but one must make decisions anyway, based on one's best judgments.