Good Stuff Done
By he who must not be named or even indirectly referenced. Not without dismissive derision.
Christopher Hitchens, who was for liberating Iraq before he was for the guy who wanted to abandon it, comes out for the liberation of Iraq and subsequent elections there as the inspiration for the pro-democracy movement in Iran.
Hey, whose idea was all that? Don’t worry, you can get through this Hitchens article at Slate without having that shoved in your face:
Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about “the liberation of Iraq,” he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran’s regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a “let’s pretend” election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.
The whole article includes a lot of inside Qom baseball, which is as interesting and enlightening as we’d expect of Hitchens, though I can’t help but suspect it serves another purpose. Because what is fascinating is how Hitchens manages to get through the article without mentioning who brought democracy to the Middle East at such great cost. Maybe Hitchens feels it is important not to alienate much of his audience by naming he who must not be named without the prerequisite dismissive derision. Hitchens also manages to avoid mocking those who claim a pandering speech in Cairo inspired pro-democracy protests by people who didn’t hear it, against a murderous Iranian establishment with which the speaker, who must not be named without praise, still seeks to treat. Because what Hitchens seems to be trying to say is that the much-condemned actions of an earlier, much-despised U.S. administration may yet be influencing events, spreading notions of hope and freedom with the potential of lasting positive effects, contrary to the desires and efforts of another party, more recently engaged in weird efforts to be better liked by kowtowing to despots.
(Sorry, I know that’s complicated, but I’m trying a Hitchensian exercise this morning. Inspired by Chris, I’m trying to see how hard it is to write that George Bush was right and Barack Obama is wrong, without actually saying that or identifying the principals. It isn’t easy, but fortunately Hitchens, though he’s abandoned his principles, hasn’t lost any of his intellectual deftness. He’s just sacrificed his brutal, incisive directness in favor of veiled flanking manuevers.)
Austin Bay at PJTV at some length on the same subject … how Iraqi democracy has influenced Iran … still doesn’t name any names, but throws in a wry remark about “that really is hope and change brought to reality, not just a rhetorical gesture.” Ouch. That’s hurtful!
Topics: Bush, Iran, Iraq, Obama, dummkopf!
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:33 am on Tuesday, July 7, 2009
4 Responses to “Good Stuff Done”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[...] Crittenden spots “Good Stuff Done” by “he who must not be named or even indirectly referenced. Not without dismissive [...]
July 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Clowns to the left of he who must not be named. Jokers to the right.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Whatever the rationale behind it, it’s OK with me. Slate readers would stop reading if they saw He Who Must Not Be Named mentioned in the article. Better to get them pointed in the right direction, and let them figure the rest out on their own.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Fatty:
I hope none of em are driving cars when it hits em.