And if that was all Blair was saying then he would be making a terrible argument and would be quickly destroyed.
Even so I think it is quite obvious that Hitchens did not support the invasion of Iraq for religious reasons so it will really have no bearing on the argument.
To which I'd say... He supported it in part because, when it comes to fighting what he
thinks is the Islamic world, Hitchens will support
anyone, and make any argument at all
irrespective of objective reality. So he ignored the fact that Saddam Hussein's Baathist party was actually secular (if brutal and awful and...), and wrote this dozy justification instead;
“George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2109377/
And yet, neither the current Iraqi administration, nor the insurgency were anything but Islamic fanatics, just differing on which sect they belonged too. The result was
not a secular state, as Hitchens dreamed
should be the result, but years of sectarian civil war that even now is simmering along with car bombings every day, despite buying off all the factions and "Surging" troops into the country.
Which of course Hitchens should have understood, being an inveterate hater of Henry Kissinger, after the example of Cambodia... but Christopher has become exactly like Kissinger himself, unconcerned with the reality and results of what they are supporting; The official Kissinger response to William Shawcross' book on Cambodia, "Sideshow" was; "By no stretch of moral logic can the crimes of mass murderers be ascribed to those who struggled to prevent their coming to power."
To which Shawcross responded;
Only by ignoring "moral logic" can Rodman, like Kissinger, invent such a formulation. Has he forgotten that it was the North Vietnamese America was fighting in 1970? The 1970-1975 war did not prevent the Khmer Rouge coming to power; it created them and created the opportunity for them to come to power....
Just as the Bolsheviks could come to power in Russia only after the destruction of World War 1, so the Khmer Rouge were enabled to control Cambodia only by the 1970-1975 war....
Reflecting this, I wrote at the end of Sideshow (page 396) "Statesmen have to be judged by the consequences of their actions. Whatever Kissinger and Nixon intended for Cambodia, their efforts created catastrophe."
Christopher Hitchens may mean well, but the people he supports, and the consequences of his actions have lead to catastrophe in turn.
Likewise, the former Northern Alliance that now rules Afghanistan differ only in the smallest degree from the Taliban, and the Taliban themselves are anything but beaten nearly 10 years later whilst the war grinds on into the Pakistani borders now.
And George W. Bush made America itself
less secular, which should go without saying. So here's the clip, and transcript of just how intelligent and witty Hitchens was when cornered with his complete inability to relate to objective reality;
http://newsbusters.org/node/7190
Yes, "Expletive You" was a
quote. That may appeal to those of you who think contrarianism is persuasive if done in a muscular fashion but...
... what does this have to do with the forthcoming debate? Tony Blair of course is the Prime Minister who introduced Faith Schools into the UK State System
way back in 2002, 2 years before the above article Including, you will notice, Islamic Faith Schools. What Hitchens should think of a catastrophe has
always been part of the design.
And whilst Hitchens has criticized Blair for his "sickly piety" he has also said the following, in an article called
"Long Live Labor: Why I'm for Tony Blair" written long after Blair did all the things he complains about;
"Nonetheless, he took a bold stand against the establishment and against a sullen public opinion and did so on a major issue of principle."
So if I were Tony Blair, do you know what I'd be doing...? I'd be making a huge list of all the times Hitchens offered his support for me, personally, and memorizing them for the debate; so when Hitchens says "I am opposed to Religion!" I'd be able to say "And yet, you supported me personally, and New Labour in general, here, here, and here... did you not understand that one of my 'major issues of principle' is religion? You trusted my internal, secret judgements on foreign policy, but don't now on faith, even though I've always been consistent, and constant?"
And the moment Hitchens has to resort to his usual "Duck You!" after someone (probably from the audience) quotes "Tony Blair: Grin And Bear Him" he's going to lose the argument.
Even though I think he's right about Religion in general.
Of course, what I suspect will really happen is Blair will just use his usual Teflon-Piety approach and simply wait for Hitchens to self destruct, because Blair is incapable of understanding that he himself is incredibly unpopular, at least in his home country; and any argument which points this out, even if indirectly by using Hitchen's support for New Labour simply won't occur to that equally monstrous egotist. Blair just isn't an aggressive egotist, so those without any dog in the fight as such will tend to side with him... it's how he won so many elections, of course.
