Friday, April 16, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home »

Christopher Hitchens: No “Arab Spring” If Saddam Still Ruled Iraq

22 April 2011 6 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Christopher Hitchens: No “Arab Spring” If Saddam Still Ruled Iraq

The Arab Revolutions are a unique moment in the history of the world for a number of reasons. Chief amongst these important reasons is the shattering of age old Orientalist myths that Arabs and Muslims are impervious to Democracy, the language of rights, etc. These talking points are usually further essentialized by the view that what is holding Arabs and Muslims back is the retrograde force of Islam.

Yet, there are attempts to steal these revolutions. Attempts to deny the indigenous, organic nature of the transformation happening before our eyes. “How could the natives rise against their dictatorships without our help,” the thinking goes.

Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. The militant atheist, morose humorist, man of letters, convert from the ranks of International Socialism to neo-Conservatism, who, terming the revolutions “Arab uprisings” believes they would never have happened if it weren’t for the Iraq War.

Hitchens was an early skeptic of the revolutions, he wrote that he “won’t be surprised” if the “exemplary courage and initiative of the citizens of Tahrir Square slowly ebb away.” The revolutions put him and others like him in a tough spot, he supported the Iraq War, claiming that Iraqis could only be freed from Saddam through Western intervention. He denied that the war was ever only about the threat of WMD’s, but rather about overthrowing a ruthless dictator.

He didn’t believe in the ability of Iraqi people, which is surprising considering the frequency with which Hitchens extols the founding fathers who wrote a document based on natural law that made the bold claim that liberty was an unalienable right for all mankind,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Either we believe that all mankind is equal and thirsts to realize its unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or we don’t. Either we believe that all mankind has the ability to throw off the shackles of oppression without dubious intervention, unending occupation or we don’t.

Hitchens writes,

Can anyone imagine how the Arab spring would have played out if a keystone Arab state, oil-rich and heavily armed with a track record of intervention in its neighbors’ affairs and a history of all-out mass repression against its own civilians, were still the private property of a sadistic crime family? As it is, to have had Iraq on the other scale from the outset has been an unnoticed and unacknowledged benefit whose extent is impossible to compute.

It is pitiful to see Hitchens try to cover his ass now. Such a great man of letters, reduced to writing like some glorified assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, justifying the unjustifiable.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the conflict in Iraq. Many more lives have been upended, destroyed and ravaged, including the lives of many American soldiers.

Now, beaming onto our television and computer screens are the inspirational, brave, victorious people of Tunisia and Egypt, who proudly let it be known that they toppled their despots.

Instead of worrying about his legacy or what the obituary in the New York Times will read, can Hitchens overcome his hubris and polemical nature, and give credit where credit is due?


  1. […] Christopher Hitchens: No “Ar&#97&#98&#32Spring” If Saddam Still Ruled Iraq … […]

  2. Let he who is not illogical in the defense of his position cast the first barb. All religions have toxic elements. To defend the religion that is the most toxic of all by quoting the toxic elements that have been mostly eliminated in another religion is not only duplicitous and illogical, it is dangerous. Do you buffoons actually believe there is immoral (sic) equivalence between the Qu’ran burning of Terry Jones and the beheading of Daniel Pearl or the stoning of Soroya? And as far as misplaced concern over Sharia, consider that over a billion people in the world, although they might not now practice Sharia, are sympathetic toward Sharia. Then give another thought about democracy, and that these people might someday be making decisions about Sharia law. Also consider, if you are gay, that you would be executed under Sharia law. The ignorance of those opposing Sharia law about Sharia law does not make Sharia law any less toxic – – nor does it make Sharia less of a danger to personal freedoms wherever it rears its ugly head. Is it worse to place an unnecessary law on the books against Sharia, or to act after Sharia has become an insoluble problem, such as in the Islamic quarters that have become de facto self-governing is some European countries?

    How does this relate to Christopher Hitchens? Don’t display your ignorance by asking that question.

  3. i don’t get where you are saying he is wrong, you go on about some sort of everyone wants freedom? so why did the iraqis not overthrow saddam in the 80s? why even let him come to power? after the first iraq war didn’t the kurds in the north and the shia in the south try to revolt, and the west didn’t support them. they lost. isn’t it funny that the “arab spring” has only been successful in the nations where the western powers have influence? syria just shoots their protesters, lybia is in a civil war. do muslims think nato’s involement there is good? i don’t think any one thing is the cause. demographics, high unemployment, rising food prices, and of course the internet (social media), international news organizations, even the oft hated cable news organizations have all played a role. this reminds me of ghandi’s peaceful revolt in india. do you think the british would have let go of the jewel of the empire if it wasn’t for reports and pictures of british troops shooting unarmed protester? the pen (camera, smartphone, keyboard,) is mightier than the sword. oh yeah i almost forgot about the iranians. no western influence no success. too bad.

  4. “Either we believe that all mankind has the ability to throw off the shackles of oppression without dubious intervention, unending occupation or we don’t.”

    That makes no sense whatsoever. None. If the army supports you you can, if they support the dictator you can’t. It has sweet F.A. with being born equal.

    Utter nonsense.

  5. Bullshit article coming from someone who has never been to Iraq or knows the power of the Baath-regime.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>