Monday, September 29, 2003

Hitchens Rallies Support for U.S. Military Action in Iraq

By Mark Hand

Christopher Hitchens takes a cigarette break Christopher Hitchens exudes bitterness and anger toward U.S. television networks for refusing to show footage of the appreciation the Iraqi people still hold for the U.S. soldiers who liberated their country from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s regime. As of July, the last time Hitchens was in Iraq, people in the Shiite areas of the country still were giving waves of thanks to the convoys of U.S. military vehicles as they passed along their roads. Since the initial days after the fall of Baghdad, the networks, including CNN, have stopped showing these scenes of gratitude, Hitchens complains to the group of 40 or so people who have gathered to hear him speak at an Arlington, Va., bookstore.

At the end of the question-and-answer period, Hitchens begins to mutter words of disdain for those in the United States who continue to overlook the bravery and good work performed by the U.S. military in its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Like a talk show host, Hitchens directs his book talk audience to offer a round of applause for the U.S. soldiers occupying Iraq. The crowd obeys the command of the author, who then exits triumphantly from the back of the bookstore to catch a smoke (see photo above) before he signs his books and makes small talk with his fans, many of them newfound based on his well-publicized support for the Bush administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hitchens was appearing at Olsson’s bookstore in the Courthouse section of Arlington to promote his recent book, Why Orwell Matters. He tells the audience that it’s not just governments that develop Orwellian terms such as collateral damage. Individuals adopt euphemisms to describe the world around them that could be construed as doublespeak. Take, for instance, the slogan of the antiwar movement, “No war on Iraq.” Hitchens maintains that this slogan was a euphemism for “No quarrel with Saddam.” He implies that those opposed to the U.S. government’s invasion, overthrow, occupation and installation of a new government in Iraq believe that Saddam Hussein was not a bad leader.

During his talk, Hitchens also dismisses as harmless those polls that show a majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Arlington. That’s less objectionable than Gore Vidal — in his book, Dreaming War, and newspaper articles — arguing that George W. Bush was behind 9/11, Hitchens says. But Vidal has never argued Bush was behind 9/11. The audience doesn’t challenge Hitchens on this obvious fib. Instead, I hear a woman behind me let out a gasp, probably at the notion that a prominent writer such as Gore Vidal would think a U.S. president could have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

What Vidal has said is that Bush may have deliberately chosen not to act on warnings of Al-Qaeda’s plans for attacks in the United States two years ago. This is different than the opinions of the respondents to the infamous poll believing that Saddam Hussein actually ordered the strikes on the United States. Hitchens must know that he is being dishonest in his representation of Vidal’s position on 9/11. But he views the likes of Vidal, Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark as his ideological enemies. In his war against these writers and activists, Hitchens evidently believes it’s legitimate to misrepresent his enemies’ views in order to justify his support for the U.S. actions in Iraq.

The day Hitchens spoke in Arlington was the day after Edward Said had died in a New York City hospital after a long battle with leukemia. During the question-and-answer session, someone asks Hitchens the silly question of what Orwell would have thought of Edward Said. Hitchens responds by noting that Orwell thought Zionism was an injustice. He uses this as segue into arguing that Said wrote the worst essay ever written on Orwell. It may be the worst essay ever written on anything, Hitchens adds.

In Why Orwell Matters, Hitchens criticizes Said and others who have attacked Orwell for passing on the names of suspected Communists to British government authorities. Hitchens claims that Said and others misunderstood and misquoted Orwell.

Hitchens closes his book talk by saying he was “so gutted by Edward’s death” that he almost decided not to attend that evening’s reading and signing. Said was a “great secularist and humanitarian,” Hitchens adds.

More from Mark Hand

Comments (0)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Edward Said: Campus Hysteria in the Face of Truth -->

<-- Previous: A Tribute to Professor Edward Said

Support Press Action