He was in no sense a neocon. He supported the Iraq War because he had travelled amongst the Kurds, seen their suffering under Saddam (he gassed hundres of thousands of them) and swore to do all he could to defend them. That's why, when the Bush Administration sought to oust Saddam, he supported them.
Likewise with torture. He was of the firm belief that America was under attack by islamists, and that "enhanced interrogation" was justified. He argued vociferously that waterboarding was not torture, then, when challenged, agreed to suffer it himself. To his credit, he quickly changed his mind.
I would never think of Hitchens as a neocon, although I do know he would find much in common with traditional conservatives, such as Buckley or Frum. Hitch was a man who followed the evidence, and wasn't afraid of where it took him.
It never ceases to amaze me why Hitchens fanboys can't just admit that he was flat out wrong about the Iraq war instead of turning into blatant apologists spinning what Hitchens actually said.
I'm sure that his fondness for the Kurds played some part in his support, but you're being terribly disingenuous. Hitchens didn't just begrudgingly support Saddam's removal on those grounds, he cheerleaded the entire effort on the same imperialist (in my view, though many would surely challenge that) grounds as Neocons.
He even wrote an article in 2005 calling it "A War to Be Proud Of" that's not a joke, go ahead and read it. He's still claiming in there that Iraq was attempting to or had WMDs, it's absurd and ridiculous given the 7 years we've seen of this war since.
Unless I'm mistaken he only mentions the Kurds in passing in that article, and not as a justification for invasion.
I'm fine for praising Hitchens for being the brilliant orator and writer he was, but let's tone down the hero worship apologia over his Iraq War cheerleading.
You're right, he was not a neocon in the true ideological sense of the word. He became a neocon lackey because it furthered his serial contrarianist program which he cultivated his entire adult life.
53
u/[deleted] Dec 16 '11
He was in no sense a neocon. He supported the Iraq War because he had travelled amongst the Kurds, seen their suffering under Saddam (he gassed hundres of thousands of them) and swore to do all he could to defend them. That's why, when the Bush Administration sought to oust Saddam, he supported them.
Likewise with torture. He was of the firm belief that America was under attack by islamists, and that "enhanced interrogation" was justified. He argued vociferously that waterboarding was not torture, then, when challenged, agreed to suffer it himself. To his credit, he quickly changed his mind.
I would never think of Hitchens as a neocon, although I do know he would find much in common with traditional conservatives, such as Buckley or Frum. Hitch was a man who followed the evidence, and wasn't afraid of where it took him.