Flashback

Hitchens in 1976, as a cautious admirer of Baath Party tyranny:

The Kurds now have a very attenuated version of autonomy, and former members of the Barzani armed forces are being moved to the South. At least, however, Iraq constitutionally recognises that she is a partly Kurdish state, which is more than Iran or Turkey do. Further tests for the regime lie ahead. The quarrel with Syria, which involves differences over Ba’athist ideology as well as a dispute over Syrian damming of the Euphrates river, has now extended to the Lebanon, where Syrian troops have attacked newspapers and buildings controlled by Iraqi-sympathising Palestinians. Relations with Iran are still far from cordial. In response to requests for criticism in the party press, some demands were raised for a constituent assembly, and other complaints voiced about the tightness of the regime. All these remain to be acted on, and as the situation grows more complicated Saddam Hussain will rise more clearly to the top. Make a note of the name. Iraq has been strengthened internally by the construction of a ‘strategic pipeline’ which connects the Gulf to the northern fields for the first time. She has been strengthened externally by her support for revolutionary causes and by the resources she can deploy. It may not be electrification plus Soviet power, but the combination of oil and ‘Arab socialism’ is hardly less powerful.

Fascinating.

Comments

What that written before or after the Johnny Walker Black? I can't quite tell.

Posted by Garuda | July 13, 2007 4:54 PM

I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on what Hitchens said about Saddam Husein 31 years ago. But this does give me the opportunity to mention the hilarious Ruben Bolling cartoon in which he depicts Hitchens as a foil for Martin Amis in an Apple Jacks ad. Check it out.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 13, 2007 4:57 PM

"... as the situation grows more complicated Saddam Hussain will rise more clearly to the top. Make a note of the name."

Well, he called it.

Posted by Kyle | July 13, 2007 5:02 PM

Classic neocon MO: embrace an extremist ideology and then step back just a tad, then obsess over how much you hate those more extreme than you and over the fact people less extreme than you don't share the same obsession with such zeal. Make it clear you are the only one exercising moral clarity.

Posted by Reality Man | July 13, 2007 5:49 PM

And the part that "admires" Baath Party tyranny is...?

Seriously, Matthew's posting has gone waaaay downhill since the Atlantic move.

Posted by Al | July 13, 2007 6:17 PM

I didn't see the admiring part, either. I did see a very perceptive prediction that this Saddam dude was a guy to watch.

Posted by too many steves | July 13, 2007 6:34 PM

> And the part that "admires" Baath Party tyranny is...?

Exactly. What stops this from being hackery
on MY's part is that he actually quotes
Hitchens.

The article seems mostly an attempt to draw
attention to the coming rise of Iraq and of
Saddam. As Kyle notes, Hitchens called it.

Posted by Raj | July 13, 2007 6:42 PM

Al:

And the part that "admires" Baath Party tyranny is...?

Seriously, Matthew's posting has gone waaaay downhill since the Atlantic move.

Hitchens:

[Iraq] has a leader — Saddam Hussain — who has sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser.

Al's hackery has gone waaaay downhill since the complete implosion of his Republican masters.

Posted by grh | July 13, 2007 6:43 PM

Delurking here for just one post.

I hope that the Al I'm agreeing with is NOT the friendly neighborhood troll Al, but have to agree.

I'm starting to confuse MY's blog with Andy Sullivan's (who just blogged about Hitchens and Saddam today). I liked MY better before the move.

I will go back to lurking now.

Posted by mattsmom | July 13, 2007 7:19 PM

grh: Perhaps Matthew should have excerpted better, but yes, people should read the damn link before commenting.

And of course, as an aside, if Saddam was still in power now the US would clearly be better off.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 7:23 PM

In 1976, Saddam hadn't formally came to power yet, he was a technocrat who was credited with building a world-class health care and education system from the ground up. He was the "carrot" guy in Ba'ath "carrot and stick" theory. I give him a pass on seeing some hope in Saddam. He also noted that the Iraq of that day, was repressive (even murderously so for Kurds). It was actually a pretty smart article for 1976, makes me wish he hadn't turned to the dark side out of his petty religious-baiting.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 13, 2007 7:37 PM

makes me wish he hadn't turned to the dark side out of his petty religious-baiting.

Who, Saddam or Hitchens?

Posted by Duvall | July 13, 2007 7:53 PM

Sorry, but that article is simply ignorant, as are most of the comments. Hitchens was describing a remarkable political experiment that was in fact going very well.

The Ba'ath party had brought a stability to Iraq it had never known, had taken the Islamist fervor our of politics, and capitalized on its oil to build arguably the most socially "just" society in the Arab world. Nearly universal education/literacy, 15+% women in medical/legal/political professions, the place everyone in that part of the world flew to for medical procedures, etc., etc.

Was Hussein a seriously bad dude, even then? Of course. (Not that his tactics made him stand out much amongst his predecessors or neighboring leaders.) Of course, the fact that the US wouldn't stop fucking with their internal politics didn't help matters. It was only when Sadaam was no longer restrained by Al-Bakr that things started really going to hell. (Saddam wasn't the "dictator" at the time; he wasn't even in charge. Tell Taylor and the New Statesman people to check their bloody facts.)

I (like Al, sadly) see no admiration of tyranny in the article, unless you think that is synonymous with the Ba'ath party in the 70s, which is just stupid -- just look at the all their neighbors.

It's a pretty damned insightful article. I wish we could see more of that from him now.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 13, 2007 7:56 PM

"Was Hussein a seriously bad dude, even then? Of course. (Not that his tactics made him stand out much amongst his predecessors or neighboring leaders.)"

Look, no one, certainly not me given my prior comment, is saying this was a bad article by CH in 1976.

But his, dare I say, evangelical fervor for regime change, given what was obvious to occur in Iraq post-Saddam, is in fact facinating in light of his long-ago perspective.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 8:15 PM

MY is correct that the article is "cautiously admirin[ing] in tone. Don't believe me, read it.

On the other hand, Nolaboyd is correct that this attitude toward Saddam was in fact quite justifiable in 1976. Prior to the disastrous wars with Iran and Kuwait, Saddam's regime had a number of positive features to set aside its vicious brutality. This is a horribly un-PC thing to say, but the fact is the third world is full of brutal regimes that achieve nothing, so a brutal regime that raises standards of health and education, fosters domestic industry and makes real investment in public infrastructure does deserve a degree of credit.

As for Hitchens, he's a dishonest and manipulative but occasionally brilliant hack who espouses the stupidest and most appalling causes, who used to be a dishonest and manipulative but frequently brilliant hack who espoused many noble and also many appalling causes. An evolution not entirely unlike Saddam's, come to think of it.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 13, 2007 8:32 PM

Not the usual protocol here, but...lemuel wins.

A clever CH booze reference would have been both terribly unfair and elevated comment even further.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 8:41 PM

His article is factually incorrect. While Saddam's Iraq may have recognized it was Kurdish (and it would be stupid for it not to when 20% of its population was Kurdish), the Kurds were still supported by Iran until the mid-seventies, and then again during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq was never a friend to the Kurds, while Iran always was, as noted by Mr. Talebani, the current President of Iraq. Most members of the Barzani clan were also either born in Iran or lived there.

Posted by Homes | July 13, 2007 8:50 PM

This post is either ignorant or petty. Everyone knows that Hitchens reversed his ideology in the 90s. He wrote extensively about his travel to Iraq after the First Persian Gulf War and how his experience changed his mind.

Up until that point, Hitchens was a typical Trotskyist. He believed that the US was an evil imperial power and that the Baathist Regime was the standard bearer for Socialist Revolutionary in the Middle East. He went to Iraq to look for evidences to support this view. However, his meeting with the Kurds in Northern Iraq changed his mind.

One may disagree with current Hitchens' assessment and conclusion. But one must admire that he was willing to admit that he was wrong. It takes courage to change one mind, more than I can say about many here.

Posted by Minhduc | July 13, 2007 8:52 PM

Of course we must caution against "premature" anti-fascism.

If you thought the Kurds were bitchen and Saddam Hussein one of these jerk types before the sucky invasion of Kuwait you friend are suspect of something foul.

Posted by Linus | July 13, 2007 9:00 PM

Of course we must caution against "premature" anti-fascism.

If you thought the Kurds were bitchen and Saddam Hussein one of these jerk types before the sucky invasion of Kuwait you friend are suspect of something foul.

Posted by Linus | July 13, 2007 9:00 PM

He wrote extensively about his travel to Iraq after the First Persian Gulf War and how his experience changed his mind. ... one must admire that he was willing to admit that he was wrong.

Well no, one must not. Because the most bizarre thing about Hitchens' ideological evolution is that he's never admitted to changing his views at all.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 13, 2007 9:01 PM

These points are so important and compelling they must be stated repeatedly.

Posted by Linus | July 13, 2007 9:02 PM

Minhduc: Wow, someone who wrote about international affairs for 20 YEARS before post-Gulf War I (or, only The Gulf War), takes one plane trip that he evidently never took before, makes him an expert?? And we're supposed to admire his wisdom NOW?

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 9:07 PM

Minhduc: Wow, someone who wrote about international affairs for 20 YEARS before post-Gulf War I (or, the Gulf War), takes one plane trip that he evidently never took before, makes him an expert?? And we're supposed to admire his wisdom NOW?

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 9:08 PM

He wrote extensively about his travel to Iraq after the First Persian Gulf War and how his experience changed his mind.

Yeah, and he remembered that in 2003.

I'm having a hard time even digesting the irony of someone who is still gung-ho about Iraq lecturing people about the ability to admit they were wrong.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 13, 2007 9:31 PM

Ed Marshall: I said nothing about Iraq. I did not even say anything about whether Hitchens is right or not. I simply said that the post was a low-blow. It drags something written by Hitchens 1976 but neglect to mention that Hitchens publicly renounced his old belief. And it is not a recent conversion either. He changed his view almost 20 years ago.

Andruw: Like your friend Ed above, you also have no appreciation for Reading Comprehension. This post would be fine if it suggests that Hitchens is wrong about his view on Iraq (either then or now), or that Hitchens does not possess the neccessary expertise to make the call. If the post made any of the point I mentioned, it would be a substantive post regardless whether I agree with the post or not.

You two need to learn to compartmentalize your argument. Willing to change one strongly held belief is admirable. Whether or not one's new belief is right or wrong is an entirely different issue.

Posted by Minhduc | July 13, 2007 10:13 PM

He changed his view almost 20 years ago.

No, he didn't. I don't think my reading comprehension is the problem here. The problem is I've read Hitchen's for a long time and I know that's complete bullshit. You obviously haven't.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 13, 2007 10:26 PM

Minhduc: Chris Hitchens was a war-favoring (being polite) lefty in 1987?? Really?

Don't doubt your honesty, but citations would be nice. Daniel Ortega would appreciate as well.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 11:04 PM

In 1976 Christopher Hitchens saw Saddam as an up-and-coming secular socialist who would transform Iraq into a progressive model for the rest of the Middle East

A lot of people here would apparently be surprised to learn how widespread this view was on the left at that time.

Posted by chris y | July 14, 2007 7:08 AM

A lot of people here would apparently be surprised to learn how widespread this view was on the left at that time.

Iraq wasn't on anybody's radar in 1976 (except Hitchens which I give him some credit for spotting). When he forced out Al-Bakr, and started a reign of terror (with the help of a long list of communists supplied by the CIA) he started making a blip on the screen of the militaristic Right. After the Iranian Revolution, he was their darling, you can go back and read the WSJ editorial pages of the day and there was a massive amount of Saddam appologia, not for building hospitals and universities but for using chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 14, 2007 9:30 AM

this is hardly fascinating. The left is forever annointing someone the savior of socialism only for that individual to in short order reveal themselves to be a totalitarian maniac. They did exactly the same with mugabe and countless others.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | July 14, 2007 9:31 AM

MY is correct that the article is "cautiously admirin[ing]" in tone. Don't believe me, read it.

No lemuel, the sentence was "a cautious admirer of Baath Party tyranny." As you rightly note, there's lots of tyranny around, and what set the Baath party apart was its accomplishments. Saying Hitch admired the tyranny is either clumsy phrasing (my guess) or a super cheap shot.

It's all so unnecessary. You can hang Hitch with dozens of other things if you're so inclined.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 14, 2007 9:49 AM

Thing is, Saddam with all his faults (mass-murdering meglomaniac that he was) did a much better job of running Iraq than we have. He wanted a secular, modern society--we've been busy establishing a Shiite theocracy. He did a better job than we have of keeping fundamentalist terrorists under control. We've killed a lot more Iraqis than he ever did, too.

Posted by rea | July 14, 2007 10:35 AM

Up until that point, Hitchens was a typical Trotskyist. He believed that the US was an evil imperial power and that the Baathist Regime was the standard bearer for Socialist Revolutionary in the Middle East. He went to Iraq to look for evidences to support this view. However, his meeting with the Kurds in Northern Iraq changed his mind

I'm pretty sure Hitchens had opposed Saddam well before 1991, unless you conflate opposing the 1st Gulf War with supporting Saddam. However, that supposed story about Hitchens turning into a supporter of regime change in Iraq after riding in a Kurdish jeep in 1991 is just not true. Dennis Perin, Hitchens' old friend, has more on this:
http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/06/punchy.html

Posted by Peter H | July 14, 2007 11:59 AM

Ed Marshall and Andruw,

I believe that Hitchens words were "You can say I was a former Trotskyist." I cannot interpret that in any other way other than that he was a Trotskyist in the 70s and is not a Trotskyist anymore. It was a common view among Trotskyists that the Baath Party was a genuine Socialist Revolutionary Party deserving support from Socialists International. It is still the common view among Trotskyists today. Remember that Arab Socialism was the darling of the Left at the time. The Baath Party was Socialist, or at least claimed to be Socialist. It full name is "The Baath Arab Socialist Party." Whether it is still Socialist or was ever Socialist is a seperate point.

Hitchens was always a hawk, or "war-favoring" in your word. The only different is that he is now supporting the very opposite side.

Here is Hitchens in an interview. If one take Hitchens at his words, he did change his mind. And as I said before, whether his new view is correct or not is a different issue:

I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, "Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can't see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don't want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy's image on it. So do you have to?" And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, "No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too." And from what I'd seen by then in that region, I thought, that's basically morally true. I don't have a reply to that. I don't have a glib one and I don't have a sound one. It's true.

Posted by Minhduc | July 14, 2007 12:51 PM

Before anyone confuse my use of "Baath Party" with "Saddam Hussein." In 1976, Saddam was not in power in Iraq. He formally took power in 1979. I have no doubt that many Socialists admired the Baath Party in 1976 only to denounce Saddam later. It is a tradition among Socialist to remain faithful to ideology by denouncing the leaders who they believe hijacked the movement and perverted it. No Socialist would ever denounced the Bolshevik Movement in the Soviet Union. They blamed Stalin for hijacking the noble movement and perverted it.

This is why despite the fact that I admire Hitchens for his ability to change his mind, I do not share his political view.

Posted by Minhduc | July 14, 2007 1:23 PM

Remember that Arab Socialism was the darling of the Left at the time.

McCarthyist bullshit.

Posted by rea | July 14, 2007 2:14 PM

How many of the people questioning the widespread infatuation of some sections of the left with the Ba'ath (and also the government of S.Yemen) were actually active on the left in 1976? I'm not given to hallucinations, and I can remember the views of people I worked with on a daily basis.

I'm not counting small groups of self regarding social democrats in the US as "the Left" for these purposes.

Posted by chris y | July 15, 2007 10:44 AM