posted by Richard Seymour

Someone told me that Christopher Hitchens had finally published a rather "sorry" riposte to Norman Finkelstein's blazing critique. I'll say it's sorry - it's almost apologetic.

Hitchens begins with a defense of his book "The Long Short War" (or "Regime Change" in Britain). The first dubious note is sounded with the following: "It’s not a work in which one can easily get bogged down. But Finkelstein manages to get himself entangled in the text to a wince-making degree. Thus he says that I describe the followers of the anti-war demonstrations as 'ex-flower children' or 'neo Stalinists', while that was my description only of the organisers."

If he is referring to the organisers, then clearly that must be okay. Ad hominem slanders are fine when directed at former comrades. But he is not always so clear about leaving the marchers out of things: Recall that after February 15th, he wanted it to rain and "hail on the silly who are being led by the sinister."

Hitchens previously insisted as bombs were falling on Afghanistan that "there is no intelligent way to oppose this war". It is not surprising, therefore, that he is unable to conceive of opposition to war as anything but "sinister" or "silly".

In a another article, following that bombing, he added:

" I can remember a time when the peace movement was not an auxiliary to dictators and aggressors in trouble . Looking at some of the mind-rotting tripe that comes my way from much of today's left, I get the impression that they go to bed saying: what have I done for Saddam Hussein or good old Slobodan or the Taliban today?"

Presumably this was the same "peace movement" which opposed the US bombardment of Cambodia, even though a horrendous dictator ruled the country? The same "peace movement" that opposed the intervention in Grenada, even though the regime had just ousted a popular leader and installed a leftist junta? The same one that opposed the bombing and invasion of Iraq in 1991? I'm just curious, if any Hitchens fans are reading, when does it become okay to entrust the US government with dispensation of ridding the world of tyrants? Sometime after the end of the Cold War seems to be the answer.

Hitchens cannot escape the charge that he levels ad hominem insults at both the "organisers" and the "movement", and his attempt to do so reveals just how defensive he is. If the "peace movement" is an "auxiliary to dictators", then Hitchens himself bears much of the blame. He wrote scathingly during Gulf War I of those who stupidly proclaimed that they preferred "imperialism to fascism". Well, he snorted, you no longer have to choose because we've had imperialism and now fascism rules.

The only difference today is that Hitchens has persuaded himself that the United States intends to democratise the Middle East.

Next on Hitchens' carefully parsed list of criticisms is Finkelstein's rebuke over the claim that terrorism is "the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint." Finkelstein wonders if the Nazis could no longer be described as 'terrorists' since they demanded the possible. Hitchens points out that the term "terrorist" seems inadequate to describe such a regime. Well, maybe, but that doesn't negate the force of the criticism. Bin Laden and his associates are presumably terrorists according to Christopher Hitchens, yet their demands are far from impossible. The GIA may have an unpleasant vision for the future of Algeria, but it could hardly be said to be "impossible" in light of the history of that country. Hitchens' definition, of course, is carefully selected so that he can exclude the PLO and other organisations whom he still supports and of whom he still says that use of the word terrorism is an abuse of the English language. The definition has no other value or purpose.

Hitchens avers that "I think that any fair-minded reader, who had my little book to hand while reading Finkelstein’s screed, would agree that he fails to bring off any of the rhetorical or logical coups on which he rushes to congratulate himself."

Aside from the hammering irony of Hitchens accusing anyone else of self-congratulation, the only reason he can offer this conclusion is because he has omitted any of the really stinging blows. Take these, for example:

"To prove that, after supporting dictatorial regimes in the Middle East for 70 years, the U.S. has abruptly reversed itself and now wants to bring democracy there, he cites 'conversations I have had on this subject in Washington.' To demonstrate the 'glaringly apparent' fact that Saddam 'infiltrated, or suborned, or both' the U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, he adduces the 'incontrovertible case' of an inspector offered a bribe by an Iraqi official: 'he man in question refused the money, but perhaps not everybody did.'"

And again: "Hitchens maintains that that 'there is a close…fit between the democratically minded and the pro-American' in the Middle East - like 'President for Life' Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan...; that Washington finally grasped that 'there were `root causes' behind the murder-attacks' (emphasis in original) - but didn't Hitchens ridicule any allusion to 'root causes' as totalitarian apologetics?; that 'racism' is 'anti-American as nearly as possible by definition'; that 'evil' can be defined as 'the surplus value of the psychopath' - is there a Bartlett's for worst quotations?; that the U.S.'s rejoining of U.N.E.S.C.O. during the Iraq debate proved its commitment to the U.N.; that 'empirical proofs have been unearthed' showing that Iraq didn't comply with U.N. resolutions to disarm; that since the U.N. solicits U.S. support for multilateral missions, it's 'idle chatter' to accuse the U.S. of acting unilaterally in Iraq; that the likely killing of innocent civilians in 'hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes' shouldn't deter the U.S. from attacking Iraq because it is proof of Saddam's iniquity that he put civilians in harm's way; that those questioning billions of dollars in postwar contracts going to Bush administration cronies must prefer them going to 'some windmill-power concern run by Naomi Klein' - is this dry or desiccated wit?"

Or these:

"On one page he states that 'Of course it's about oil, stupid' (emphasis in original), but on another page he states that 'it was not for the sake of oil' that the U.S. went to war. In one paragraph he states that the U.S. must attack Iraq even if it swells the ranks of al-Qaida, but in the next paragraph he states that 'the task of statecraft' is not to swell its ranks. In one sentence he claims to be persuaded by the 'materialist conception of history,' but in the next sentence he states that 'a theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing.' In the first half of one sentence he argues that, since "one cannot know the future," policy can't be based on likely consequences, but in the second half he concludes that policy should be based on 'a reasoned judgment about the evident danger.'"



( Finkelstein, "On Chrisopher Hitchens" ).


Hitchens doesn't bother to mention any of these, since it is "glaringly apparent" that his own case is utterly without merit.

He boasts that "It’s true that I am sometimes rude - always on purpose, I trust...". This is what is left of Hitchens' wit - schoolboy pride in one's own crapulence and bullying demeanour. He adds that he is "not as crude as Finkelstein’s own use of references to flatulence, psychopathy or the 'bursting windbag' Vaclav Havel."

Let's recall the reference to flatulence: "For many years Hitchens awed readers with his formidable control over the English language. Now his ego delights in testing whether, through sheer manipulation of words, he can pass off flatulent emissions as bouquets."

I've linked two or three Hitchens essays in this post, so you can test for yourself whether his articles smell of such emissions, and whether Hitchens is entitled to be offended at the "crudity" of such references.

Hitchens abounds with hypocritical "admonitions" of this kind: "Throughout his essay, he seems to argue that nobody could criticise the Left except for the most mercenary and opportunist reason."

In everything Christopher Hitchens has written on the Left opposition to the war, he has always made it plain that "nobody could criticise the War except for the most mercenary and opportunist reason". Finkelstein is obviously arguing that Hitchens is engaged in "mercenary" opportunism, and he has made such a good case of it that Hitchens' only response is to point out that he had previously criticised Noam Chomsky for his "opposition to the military rescue of Bosnia and Kosovo from attempted ethnocide, and if Finkelstein thinks that this position of mine was inspired by the lust for gold from major magazines he is welcome to the thought."

Finkelstein, of course, doesn't quite argue this. He does suggest that "Hitchens can't believe a word he's saying," and "It's not exactly a martyr's fate defecting from The Nation, a frills-free liberal magazine, to Atlantic Monthly, the well-heeled house organ of Zionist crazies."

This isn't because Hitchens is critical of the Left, but because the content of his criticism is venomous bullshit. Petulantly scribbled diatribes always attract attention and money, but Finkelstein is clear that Hitchens is animated by publicity rather than "lust for gold": "when he avows, 'I attempt to write as if I did not care what reviewers said, what peers thought, or what prevailing opinion might be,' one should read, 'My every word is calculated for its public effect.'"

Hitchens complains: "I don’t know by what grandly-assumed right Finkelstein refers to the Iraqi and Kurdish dedicatees of my book as my "newly acquired friends". I have known them all for quite some time, and my solidarity with them is indeed in part a solidarity with people who have taken more risks than I have."

I suppose by the same "grandly-assumed right" that Hitchens allows himself to slander his former comrades as "ranting neo-Stalinists" etc, and the Muslim Association of Britain as "fundamentalist Muslims, who mouth the gibberish slogans of holy war but who don't give a damn for the suffering inflicted by Saddam on their co-religionists." (See Mirror column above). But Finkelstein doesn't mention "the Iraqi and Kurdish dedicatees" of Hitchens' book.

Here is Finkelstein: "Yet, he is at pains to inform readers that all his newly acquired friends are 'friends for life.'" One might assume that he is talking about Paul Wolfowitz and the neoconservative coterie that Hitchens has been coat-tailing.

Hitchens thinks he's onto something at one point: "Finkelstein’s essay begins with a lugubrious self-interrogation about his own 'Marxism', and his staunch unwillingness to repudiate it lest he be suspected, even by himself, of 'selling out'." His staunch unwillingness to "advertise the fact" that he has abandoned Marxism is what Hitchens means. He continues: "But mark the sequel. In another attempted 'gotcha' he trips over the rug by writing: 'In one sentence [Hitchens] claims to be persuaded by the ‘materialist conception of history,’ but in the next sentence he states that ‘a theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing.’' Now, anyone who knows anything at all about the materialist conception of history knows that it is not a theory that seems, or even claims, to explain everything."

Oh, I don't know. It is, after all, a totalising view of history, one that seeks to explain society and change from the bottom to the top, and one whose heuristic has the capacity to attach itself to any sphere of intellectual endeavour. Still, a more pertinent observation might be that Hitchens has also declared himself "a recovering Marxist" who believes "the game of socialism is over". His dedication to the "materialist conception of history" may be said to be in some doubt, since he has abandoned most of its necessary corrollaries.

Not to avoid "Finkelstein's unbelievably facile challenge about moral equivalence", Hitchens says: "In the case of the rocket attack on Sudan in August 1998, conducted by Clinton without any demand for inspection, any recourse to the United Nations, any discussion with allies or any consultation with Congress, I can’t see any reason in law or morality why the Sudanese government, repellent though it is, wouldn’t have been entitled to conduct a retaliatory strike, provided that it was against a military target."

Thus proving that he is not a hypocrite, and is willing to allow the same standards be applied to the US as everyone else. ONE LOUSE RETALIATORY STRIKE? THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ALLOWED? How about Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia? Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, the long list of America's victims? How many strikes are they allowed? Are they allowed to hit market places? Are they allowed to occupy and topple the regime? Obviously not. Hitchens gives the game away by asserting that such a question is "facile" - obviously, we don't allow THEM to do the same things to US. Even hypothetically, even when there is no chance of such action occurring, Hitchens can only think of one example where the US might be the legitemate target of attack. Iraq, which has never attacked America, is the legitemate target of weeks of bombing. Not just one "retaliatory strike", but a rolling campaign of bombings day and night. Followed by an occupation which is claiming as many as 1,000 bodies a week.

Try as he might, Comrade Chris cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy. Nor can he escape the fact that his argument changes every few weeks (It is about oil, now it isn't; Saddam definitely has weapons, well maybe he doesn't and that's really not what the war is about; evidence will definitely accrue about Saddam's possession of weapons, no it suddenly looks "iffy"...). Nor can he escape the charge that he engages in ad hominem slurs, and he certainly cannot complain of "ineptitude and malice" on Finkelstein's part when he displays the same himself.

Hitchens response, if you read it right down to the last PPS, pulls in various directions. At one point, he is amused by Finkelstein's attentions, at another sanctimoniously enraged. Here, he is respectful, there he is contemptuous. The confusion of emotions and clumsily lobbed blows results is a sure sign that Hitchens is punch-drunk.