had reservations about the war during his college days at U.C.L.A., but he enlisted after reading Hitchens' writings in Slate.
Christopher Hitchens, who writes about the connection in VF, includes what I think is a startling admission. He says that he'd taken a trip to Iraq with his son and, upon returning
found myself in a deeply pessimistic frame of mind about the war. Was it possible that I had helped persuade someone I had never met to place himself in the path of an I.E.D.?
[snip]
As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean.
"Used to"?
There's so much wrong with the passage. For one thing, Hitchens knows the answer to the question about the I.E.D., even if he chooses not to supply it: yes.
Anyway, Hitchens' attitude hasn't really changed. Only a few weeks ago, he was saying that disbanding the Iraqi army was a good idea, which doesn't sound like a man who's having second thoughts.
Strange; Hitchens could've used the piece as a straight mea culpa or an apologia -- reiterating that, in his view, Daily died for a worthy cause -- but for some reason he did neither. It's odd that Hitchens settled for this half measure -- it's quite uncharacteristic of him, no? Even (especially!) when he's wrong, CH is at least enthusiastically, 100% wrong.
My guess is that the VF piece indicates that Hitchens has begun to develop what scientists are calling 'a conscience.'
No comments:
Post a Comment