Hitchens: Iraq and Vietnam (erp!)

Hitchens just sits there, like a drunk at a bar:

Whatever the monstrosities of Asian communism may have been, Ho Chi Minh based his declaration of Vietnamese independence on a direct emulation of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was able to attract many non-Marxist nationalists to his camp. He had, moreover, been an ally of the West in the war against Japan. Nothing under this heading can be said of the Iraqi Baathists or jihadists, who are descended from those who angrily took the other side in the war against the Axis, and who opposed elections on principle. If today's Iraqi "insurgents" have any analogue at all in Southeast Asia it would be the Khmer Rouge.

You'll have to give me a second--this brings a tear to my eye. Saddam was never an ally of the U.S., and Ho Chi Minh was a wonderful guy who never "opposed elections on principle"? I guess he just opposed them...because he never got around to them. Like all communists.

Vietnam as a state had not invaded any neighbor (even if it did infringe the neutrality of Cambodia) and did not do so until after the withdrawal of the United States when, with at least some claim to self-defense, it overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime. Contrast this, even briefly, to the record of Saddam Hussein in relation to Iran and Kuwait.

Ok, but really Chris, you should sober up and proof read your stuff before you send it in.

As you hastily go on to mention, Ho and his followers did so invade their neighbours with little in the way of provocation. Saddam invaded Iran--you know, the mullocracy you hate? He did so with considerable support from the followers of Thomas Jefferson. Kuwait gets us into the April Glaspie story, which I guess Chalabi never mentions when he is so grandly picking up the check.

Vietnam had never attempted, in whole or in part, to commit genocide, as was the case with the documented "Anfal" campaign waged by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds.

That juxtaposition of the words "Vietnam" and "genocide" is bringing something to my mind--but what? Oh yes, now I remember: the boat people. And hadn't the Buddhists as well as the Catholics in South Vietnam fled the North because of the oppression they faced there?

In Vietnam the deep-rooted Communist Party was against the partition of the country and against the American intervention. It called for a boycott of any election that was not an all-Vietnam affair. In Iraq, the deep-rooted Communist Party is in favor of the regime change and has been an enthusiastic participant in the elections as well as an opponent of any attempt to divide the country on ethnic or confessional lines.

Sleight of hand, Chris? I think you have to be sober to carry that off. Communists don't believe in nonsense about nationality, ethnicity, religion, tradition, the family, or ordinary decency. They've got a new kind of human being to create, and if they take power, they'll let nothing stand in their way. Of course, if they expect to do well in an election, they'll take part. The old joke (you remember) is: Communists only believe in one election: the one they have a chance to win. After that, never again.

But the analogy should be to those nasty old Baathists. Deep-rooted? Check. Against the partition of the country? Check. Against American intervention (which, although it has become more surgical, still involves killing a lot of civilians)? Check. Wanting local people, not a Western imperialistic power, to decide a country's fate? Er, check.

Hitchens indicates that at least one aging hippie is able to support Bush with little adjustment in his rhetoric.

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:22 am MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

Hitchens: Iraq and Vietnam (erp!)