A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq

by Christopher Hitchens

Book Overview

No markings/notations. Cover/page edges show minor shelf/use wear with minor corner/edge bumping. Minor cover scuffing Spine/binding tight and uncreased. Pages are age tanned. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0452284988
• ISBN13: 9780452284982
• Release Date: June 2003
• Publisher: Plume Books
• Length: 104 Pages
• Weight: 0.26 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.3" x 5.3" x 8.0"
• Age Range: 18 years and up
• Grade Range: Grade 12 and higher

Customer Reviews

Hooray for Hitchens!

This gripping series of essays was written during 2002 and 2003 for the online magazine Slate. In the author's words, the intention was that of testing short-term analyses against longer term ones, whilst subjecting long-term convictions to shorter-term challenges. The essays are presented unchanged; only a short preface, an introduction and an epilogue have been added. In the introduction, Hitchens sets out his convictions whilst pointing out the contradictory and sometimes completely ridiculous arguments of the anti-war Left and isolationist Right. The witty way he demolishes the facile slogans of the so-called peaceniks often makes the reader laugh out loud. Amongst other subjects, he thoroughly and comprehensively debunks the slur that an Israeli or Zionist lobby was behind the war. Identifying the Antisemitic innuendo and imagery employed in these arguments, Hitchens points out that the most insistent lobbyists for the new Iraq policy have been Iraqis - Muslim and Christian, Arab and Kurdish, devout and secular. The first essay: Machiavelli in Mesopotamia, of November 7, 2002, examines the "case against the case against regime change". The one titled Armchair General tackles the idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war, whilst in Terrorism, Hitchens explores the definition of the term. He refers to Claude Chabrol's film Nada that demonstrates the promiscuous cruelty of nihilistic terrorists. Hitchens defines terrorism as the tactic of demanding the impossible at gunpoint. One of the most perceptive and thought-provoking essays is called Anti-Americanism, an investigation of the nature and history of this phenomenon on the Left and Right in Europe. Further thoughts cover some prominent domestic examples and observations on European critics like Le Pen and Haider. Hitchens suggests that a more apt term for the foreign strain would be Anti-Modernism or Anti-Cosmopolitanism and for the US version, Native Masochism. It is descriptive, but I prefer the word Paleotard that has emerged in the blogosphere after the publication of this book. The essay titled Evil brilliantly explores the meaning of the word from all angles. Despite the sneering of leftist intellectuals he argues persuasively that there is such a thing. Hitchens describes it as behavior that is simultaneously sadistic and self-destructive. In the trenchant piece Chew On This, he discusses Saddam's crimes, Al-Qaeda's massacres, Kurdish freedom, oil that is worth fighting for and a couple of other matters the so-called anti-war activists ignore in their ignorant obscurantism. Hitchens nails it time and again, expertly exposing the mendacious spin and the juvenile sloganeering to identify the essence, causes and consequences of the issues. My personal favorite is called The Rat That Roared, an amusing essay on France, the French, Chirac and De Gaulle. It concludes with this arresting description of Chirac: " ... a vain and posturing and venal man ... a balding Joan

A Great One Indeed

A must read for anyone who has even heard of the Iraq wars. This booklet is surprisingly dense in detail and provocation of thought. Mr. Hitch is brilliant in his use of language and fact. None can deny that he is on solid ground. Yet, the writing is unimposing and asks the reader to look kindly, and with passion, upon the suffering of those liberated-no matter what the cost. Read the book and you will see beyond the politics of the war. PenetratingArmenian A Self Certified Blogspot Blogger

compassion and insight in place of thoughtless rhetoric

Christopher Hitchens lays out the case for the liberation of Iraq as a moral imperative, on behalf of its own citizens as much as for the rest of the world, who were similarly terrorized by Saddam Hussein.Most of the book takes the form of a series of articles penned by Mr. Hitchens throughout the run-up to the invasion through to its immediate aftermath. Particularly interesting are Hitchens's accounts of visiting Iraq both before and after the invasion, as much as a friend to its people as an investigative reporter.On every side he levels his frank and insightful assessment of the actors involved, which is not at all flattering in cases such as Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Colin Powell, and Dubya himself - Hitchens is no cheerleader for the White House. But among Hitchens's charms is that he is not one of the great mass of partisan critics with a ready slander for anyone in his sights. Paul Wolfowitz and Gerhard Schroeder, each in his own way, both emerge from Hitchens's close inspection as fairly heroic figures.On the other hand, the most scathing indictments are reserved for those knee-jerk protesters and critics who equated the overthrow of our generation's Stalin with a war of aggression. Hitchens might be applauded for how reserved he reviews the telling account of the "human shields" who had a sudden change of heart after actually experiencing for just a few days the conditions in Iraq that its people have endured for decades.And there is Hitchens's great lament, as implied in the title: what a terrible decision it was not to carry out this completion of the Iraqi war in 1991, when instead we inexplicably quit an ideal opportunity to end the despotism. That delay led quickly to the abandonment and massive defeat of the internal Iraqi dissenters who had looked to us for support, reminiscent of our similar let-down of the anti-Castro Cubans thirty years earlier; and it led to the onset of far worse poverty and oppression of the entire Iraqi populace over the past twelve years than they had experienced under the pre-Kuwait Saddam. The outlandish costs now being sought for reconstruction are also due in large part to the steady twelve year collapse of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure.With controversy continuing on how finally to create an Iraq that is free and prosperous, it is invaluable to understand the mistakes made in the past. Amid so much of the same few simple-minded lines of rhetoric dominating public discourse, the piercing observations and original insights of Christopher Hitchens, wrapped in eloquent and eminently readable use of language, are a most welcome window on that understanding.

3 Reasons

Christopher Hitchens is generally regarded as one of the finest essayist of our time, a conclusion not hindered by this neat collection of lush essays laying out both the recent history of the Middle East and the reasons for our attack on Iraq. Thomas Friedman explained the situation as well in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Longitudes and Attitudes," and both of these learned men ended up ghost writing the text not produced by the clumsy Bush administration, however Mr. Friedman is a staffer at the New York Times and therefore his work is a tad bland, it doesn't contain the moulinet, the sardonic jabs and parrys that lunge from every page of this Brit Wit. Mr. Hitchens wrote for The Nation for twenty years before coming out on the side of Pres. Bush and his war on terrorism and especially the state sponsor of terrorism Saddam Hussein, a stance, a circumstance that seems to bring out his contempt for the unread left, what he refers to as the "ranting neo-Stalinist and blithering flower children" and has furthered a general identity crisis in the same. It was Mr. Hitchens who coined the term "Islamofascism" to give face to this ubiquitous enemy. His reasoning is contained herein. A mandatory read.

A view from the Left

This collection is classic Hitchens. Eloquently, convincingly and with wit he makes the case for why neutrality in the battle against fascism is not an option. And in doing so he eviscerates those who thinks that such a truce is possible or --worse -- desirable.It's a quick read but it should not be missed.