Without doubt, Hitchens' worst book.

It's a shame that such an incisive, and normally clear headed journalist and critic could have been so wrong about the war in Iraq.

None the less, it stands as an excellent example of how good people with the best of intentions can proudly support what becomes terrible evil.

Doubtless millions of good decent Germans made the same sort of mistake from about 1930-1945.

It is appropriate to return to this first-rate piece of propaganda with the benefit of hindsight. The world now knows, definitively, that the Bush administration and a complicit Congress took the United States to war on false pretenses. And it has been a disaster on all accounts. This much we know.

But remember that Bush and Cheney couldn't have done it without a large cast of well-connected, well-paid, and thoroughly uncritical mass media cheerleaders. Hitchens is a good example of this kind of propagandist. Typically, they parrot official press releases and then add some pithy ideological flair (see him derisively referring to the now-vindicated anti-war movement as 'peaceniks').

If the world is to avoid total barbarism, sane and humane people must not be afraid to call books like this out for what they really are: 'propaganda'. The fact that it does not come directly from a US government source makes little difference. Hopefully we, as citizens, can learn something from this, and look critically toward the future, finally absorb history's enduring lesson: war is a racket.

In the town where I live, I once encountered a senior- aged woman standing next to some Marines who were recruiting. She wore a crude mask likely meant to be George Bush or some political figure and had a sign reading something like "US Out of Iraq". Her mission in this vigil seemed to be to dispense little "facts" like this: "We've killed more people than Sadam Hussein ever did." Where to begin to tally the totals? One could start, Hitchens suggests, with the 50,000 strafed by helicopter gunships after Saddam had already surrendered in Kuwait. That doesn't include, of course, any of the body count from the actual Desert Shield/ Desert Storm war which ended in 1991. Nor does it include those within Iraq, many of them, like the Kuwaiti, their Muslim brothers, tortured and killed by the Baathist party. Then there are the surrounding nations.

I wanted to ask the protesting matron where she had gotten her information. CNN? Perhaps it was merely a rather prolonged senior moment. At any rate, the cure is this book by Chris Hitchens. Another who may benefit from glancing at it is H. Clinton, judging from her campaign planks.

This book, or at least my copy, dates from 2003, and runs slightly over 100 pages. Like C.S. Lewis and Neil Postman, I am a fan of the small book, and this one fits the bill. It also is what a lot of other books seem like they would be but never are, concise, pithy, polemical, reasoned, opinionated and supporting that opinion, and actually stimulating to the gray matter.

Mostly these brief essays are all of one opinion: that Regime Change was mandated in the nation of Iraq, read: deposing of Saddam. These essays, mostly written on-line, in Iraq in 2003, make the case point by point in a way that would seem invaluable for those considering the present war. The one exception to the blog- style essays is one written for the Seattle rag, The Stranger, which, to its credit, allowed Hitchens to express a viewpoint with which nearly none of its readers would agree.

I'm completely avoiding the obvious reason the name Hitchens may ring a bell: he's the author, after this book, of the best-selling God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Having not read it yet, I am in no position to comment on it, but he represents, in the present book, a small organization called Atheists for Regime Change, and when the conversation turns to religion, as it very briefly does in this book, his tone changes.

He feels very let down by Christian pacifists. He substantiates a claim that Jimmy Carter betrayed Americans (you'll have to read it to see how and why) in the matter of Iraq. He points out that many of the salvos thrown at Bush senior and junior better apply to Bill Clinton. He takes on Pat Robertson in a sentence (a sentence is enough for Hitchens' reasoned prose). But I sense he simply feels let down by the Vatican and its advisors who, like so many Americans, kept buying time for Saddam. If the vatican enlists Mother Teresa's most vociferous critics to make the case as a devil's advocate, as it were, against her being canonized as a saint, I hope they will also listen to this staunch opponent and consider his arguments and insights in the matter of fighting oppression and rebuilding Iraq.

Mr. Hitchens, while obviously a personable and interesting fellow who writes and speaks very entertainingly, cannot by any stretch be called a high-powered scholar or thinker. If you want to understand how and why the United States government has committed so many lives and resources to the ongoing war in Iraq, you need to take into account the interests of other major powers in the Middle East--specifically the European Union, Russia, and China--and the clear intent of our foreign policy planners to ensure that no other major power shall obtain a foothold in the Middle East, that, not democracy or the "war against terror," being their central preoccupation. Two far more intelligent and revealing books to consult on this matter would be David Harvey's THE NEW IMPERIALISM and A BRIEF HISTORY OF NEOLIBERALISM along with a number of other texts and documents favorably referred to by him in these books. Hitchens merely stirs around on the surface and sheds no light on underlying transformative forces, the key one being precisely this enduring competition between the major powers, rarely talked about in public but no less decisive for that.

I realize "A Long Short War" is now a dated book that doesn't need one more review, still...

Having grown tired of hearing how I should read "A Long Short War" because ot explains why the war in Iraq is proper and how the book "is only about 100 pages", I decided I'd finally read it, hence the title of this review.

This book is not really about the War in Iraq! It says so in the title, "The Postponed Liberation of Iraq". It is about how Saddam Hussein is a bad man who should never have been in power and that the world would be a better place if he were unable to practice his particular kind of rule. As far as I can tell, there are not many debating whether Hussein was a bad man in the end, even among those who believe he wasn't one in the beginning.

There is a tacit assumption in "A Long Short War" of the end justifying the means. Hitchens felt Hussein should be out of power, so he sees the war as a good thing. However, he does not deal seriously with the issue that the simple overthrow of Hussein is not the reason the Congress or American people were given for embarking on the war in Iraq. No WMD? Well, Hussein was trying to make them (in Hitchens' view) and there's no question (for Hitchens) that Hussein would have been successful if given enough time. Still, Hussein's having the time and inclination to make WMD was not the reason for US involvement. It was the presence of WMD, which many now argue was known to be false at the time. This is a point that Hitchens does not take up.

In essence, I found "A Long Short War" to be a long short read. I kept waiting for serious discussions, which never came, of whether US entry into Iraq was justified for the reasons that the US supposedly entered. It is a very weak book that is strong on reasons why Saddam Hussein is/was a bad man. Unable to explain how Congress and the public were not misled into supporting US entry into Iraq, Hitchens merely repeats again and again how bad a man Hussein is/was as though this makes the question irrelevant. Hitchens is clearly an intelligent man who is up on his facts. It is easy to see how he and those who quote him can create a very powerful smoke screen, but in the end that's all it is--smoke. His silence on the *way* the US entered Irag is, to borrow from an old but apt cliche, deafening.

This is a wonderful book for everyone still entranced by the US role in the Iraqi civil war, and for those curious about the fantasies of the Bush administration that launched his crusade against Islam.

Hitchens is a crafty, skilled, invidious flack for the neocon minority that regards war as the solution for any problem produced by the collision of two or more ideas. He prides himself as a contrarian, an ironic self-title that mocks the opposition of those who recognize the civil war in Iraq as Bush's greatest folly. The book is an astute selection of 'Slate' online columns written prior to the invasion, his "facts" are a first-class example of what is known in the news business as "press release journalism".

As such, it is a concise summary of the folly -- some would say wisdom -- that inveigled Americans into a "perfect" war that avoids the horrendous toll of the Vietnam. But, it's just enough to maintain constant uncertainty, unease and doubts which Bush uses adroitly "to avoid changing horses (i.e. commander-in-chief') in midstream" but not enough to bring about his own defeat. Few wars are so good they last indefinitely without fatal results; but, Hitchens proves once and for all that it's possible to fool enough of the people enough of the time to win enough of the votes. The neocons couldn't be happier, more smug, more self-satisfied or more pleased with Hitchens.

Perhaps the most telling metaphor for the book is the cover photo showing US forces pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein; to this day, Americans are still expected to do everything for the Iraqis. It's why more than 3,000 US civilians and military personnel have died since the "Mission Accomplished" boast. It shows why newspapers are still far more trustworthy than hired flacks. At least Colin Powell had the decency to admit he was duped; Hitchens has a habit of hiding from his mistakes, which may be why he hasn't come up with a sequel about "peace, prosperity and progress in the Garden of Eden (Iraq)".

Hitchens is a usually arrogant contrarian with a distaste for most elements of American-style democratic chaos; but, he can also be a fawning lap-dog for utterly ridiculous ideas as this book illustrates. Anyone who loves the American role in Iraq's civil war will find it is a useful and inspiring gospel; those who oppose folly will appreciate the ease with which some people can be thrown, tied and branded.

Today it's perhaps even more significant than in 2003, when Hitchens bought hook, line and sinker into the "let's have a nice little war" scenario. America now has its "long short war". Now, ominously, a similar drumbeat is starting faintly for a war against Iran; perhaps Hitchens will volunteer again to be a spokesman for why Americans should die in another MidEast land.

All in all, a wonderful book by a brilliant author whose penchant for irrascibility instead of reason results in razzle-dazzle raves for cowboy politics instead of the rational ideas of the Clinton years. Journalism used to reflect the idea, "Question everything: If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Hitchens has turned it around to mean, "Accept everything, if Bush says "war" just reply "Ready, aye, ready!"

This is an unbelievably terrible effort at polemicisism by a usually brilliant journalist. Hitchens was, and still is in favor of regime change in Iraq. He accepts the hard-line Neo-Conservative agenda of Wolfowitz and Cheney, and doesn't seem to have any problem with accepting each and every one of their lies.

-To begin, Hitchens has no problem with the knowledge that the US has supported Hussein throughout his worst atrocities, and somehow believes that the sudden desire to remove him is the product of noble and benign humanitarian intervention.

-Yet later he seems to have no problem with the knowledge that this war is about oil, writing "of course it's about oil, stupid." Hitchens thinks oil is worth fighting for. Are we supposed to accept this from a former Trotskyite? It is worth sacrificing human life for the sake of oil profits for the whores at Halliburton? This is sheer nonsense.

-The book is replete with dated material. Hitchens believed that Hussein had WMD, that he had well established ties to Al-Queda, and that the removal of Hussein was necessary for the stability of the region. This is utterly ridiculous.

-Long, Short, War is easily Hitchens' worst work of writing, and you shouldn't believe a word of it. The Iraq war is a miserable failure motivated by the forces of greed and barbarity. Hitch never should have stooped to the low level of Bush, Cheney, and all the rest. May he redeem himself in the future and admit the error of his ways.

For those individuals that believe Mr. Hitchens is "dumb" or "stupid" obviously don't know anything about him. This is one of his many books written through intellectual curiosity, truth, and historical facts. Mr. Hitchens does not spin the facts to suit his own methods, as many political writers do. Instead, he will quickly and effeciently analyze facts and thoroughly present his position.

If you are interested in reading an intellectual analysis of Iraq and the build-up to war, read this book. Those idiots who haven't read Mr. Hitchens but continue to ridicule him have no justification for their illogical rantings.

The rapist said to his victim "she enjoyed it" Iraqi nation enjoyed that rape and called it consensual sex? Christopher is a bad guy and an advocate of a rape.

This short book contains a series of essays for the online magazine Slate written during 2002 and 2003. In the author's words, the intention was that of testing short-term analyses against longer term ones, whilst subjecting long-term convictions to shorter-term challenges. The essays are presented unchanged; only a short preface, an introduction and an epilogue have been added.

In the intro, Hitchens sets out his convictions whilst pointing out the contradictory and sometimes completely ridiculous arguments of the anti-war Left and Right. The hilarious way he destroys the cheap slogans of the so-called peaceniks often makes the reader laugh out loud. Amongst other subjects, he thoroughly demolishes the slur that an Israeli or Zionist lobby was behind the war. He mentions the Anti-Semitic innuendo and imagery employed, and points out that the most insistent lobbyists for the new Iraq policy have been Iraqis - Muslim and Christian, Arab and Kurdish, devout and secular.

The first essay: Machiavelli in Mesopotamia, of November 7, 2002, investigates the "case against the case against regime change". The one titled Armchair General tackles the idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war, whilst in Terrorism, Hitchens explores the definition of the term. He refers to Claude Chabrol's film Nada that demonstrates the promiscuous cruelty of nihilistic terrorists. He describes terrorism as the tactic of demanding the impossible at gunpoint.

One of the highlights of the book is called Anti-Americanism, an investigation of its varieties on the right and left, foreign and domestic. Hitchens concludes that for foreigners, the more correct term would be "anti-modernist" and for insiders, "native masochist."

The essay titled Evil brilliantly explores the meaning of the word. Despite the sneering of liberal intellectuals, there is such a thing, he argues convincingly. Hitchens describes it as behaviour that is simultaneously sadistic and self-destructive. In the trenchant piece Chew On This, he discusses Saddam's crimes, Al-Qaeda's massacres, Kurdish freedom, oil worth fighting for and a couple of other things Seattle's "pot-lucking peaceniks" might wish to consider. Hitchens nails it time and again, expertly destroying the spin and the sloganeering to address the gist of the issue.

My personal favourite is called The Rat That Roared, an essay on France, the French, Chirac and De Gaulle. It concludes with this hilarious description of Chirac: " ... vain and posturing and venal man ... a balding Joan of Arc in drag. This is the case of the rat that tried to roar." The following one: Inspecting "Inspections" is also outstanding, pointing out the ridiculous farce of the United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. In the article Not Talking Turkey, Hitchens argues that the USA is far better off without "allies" like Turkey.

Insight follows insight, as the author is once again on top form as he demolishes the arguments of Christians against the removal of Saddam, giving examples of the moronic pronouncements of the Vatican and the Peanut Czar Jimmy Carter. Those who prefer Saddam Hussein to oil are scrutinized in the essay Oleaginous, as Hitchens examines the contradictory positions taken by the peaceniks. They weren't for peace, they were on the side of the Baathists.

The Epilogue: After The Fall, deals with the toppling of the dictator's statue, the Gulf War of 1991 and its aftermath and his personal experiences and impressions after the 2003 liberation. He considers the 12 years between the two wars as a time eaten by locusts, and points out the nonsense parroted by opponents of the war: the apocalyptic worst case scenarios, the mythical Arab street and the rubbish from people like Scott Ritter and Robert Fisk.

Hitchens covers every angle of the Iraq War in its historical perspective, also criticising the mistakes and actions of the USA and other Western powers. One of the elements that makes the book so special is the voice he gives to ordinary Iraqis. I admire his intellectual integrity, his impressive knowledge of history and his captivating style. This little classic presents ample evidence of Hitchens at his best.

Christopher Hitchens is one of those authors that I do not agree with on everything, but have a huge amount of respect for. He comes across as an author that sticks to what he thinks is right, and doesn't adhere blindly to a particular ideology.

That being said, I think anyone that cares at all about Iraq should give this short little book a chance. He makes quite a few good points that fly in the face of the Left's "no blood for oil" chants and the rest. Hitchens makes the point that we're not starting off with a clean slate in Iraq and just because you disagree with past policy doesn't mean you should automatically condemn what's happening now. What we've done to Iraq in the past under both Republicans and Democrats morally necessitates the need to overthrow Hussein.

I would give this book five stars if it weren't for Hitchens' going back over and over to the UN resolutions Hussein was ignoring. It's true, Hussein was ignoring resolutions, but so was Washington. Clinton kept moving the goalposts unilaterally to suit his policy preferences. The best thing to do would have been to just stick to the resolutions and then let Hussein violate them...which he most likely would have done. Then we would have had a stronger moral argument to make...thanks Clinton. Hitchens ignores this point and his argument is slightly weaker for it.

When reading this book, please try to disengage from any thinking about Bush and his cabinet, regardless of your own partisan leanings. Listen to these arguments with an open mind and I think you'll find they make a lot of sense. Of everything I've read on Iraq and the U.S., this is one of the better books.

A must read for anyone who has even heard of the Iraq wars.

This booklet is surprisingly dense in detail and provocation of thought. Mr. Hitch is brilliant in his use of language and fact. None can deny that he is on solid ground.

Yet, the writing is unimposing and asks the reader to look kindly, and with passion, upon the suffering of those liberated-no matter what the cost. Read the book and you will see beyond the politics of the war.

PenetratingArmenian
A Self Certified Blogspot Blogger

If this person does not believe that this war was about oil, then he seriously needs a wake up call. How can anyone in their sound mind call this a liberation? When in history has an occupation liberated its occupied? What has this invasion brought? Nothing but the very same terror that the US is supposed to wage war against. It is sad that no one realizes that WAR is the biggest TERROR that any people can experience.
I cannot understand how someone of this shallow calibre of thought can even be published.

Great stuff, Hitchens has finally seen the light.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

I am one who has always been critical of our reasons for going into Iraq and, further, how we've conducted the Iraq 'war.' But I am equally uncomfortable when around my anti-war friends who, to me, always seem to oversimplify the issue by suggesting absuridities like (a) we should have given Iraq more time (as the UN has for 10 years, to no appreciable avail); (b) Saddam Hussein posed little threat to the international community (ignoring that even Clinton knew this wasn't true); or worst of all (c) that the war in Iraq will encourage Islamic anti-americanism even more (as if this wouldn't have happened anyway).

So as an opposer of the Iraq war, I appreciate reading books like Hitchens' that at very least gives some meaty considerations of the 'pro-Iraq-war' type. I agree with other reviewers that as the book is a short collection of short essays, Hitchens does more by way of rhetoric than analysis. I also agree that the lack of citations was a problem. But I vehemently disagree with those who feel that Hitchens does not know what he is talking about, that he simply has a 'neo-con' bias (Hitchens has always been and continues to be on the far left), or that his arguments are not eye-opening or persuasive.

Hitchens focuses on two things in particular: rebutting those overly simplistic slogans of what he calls (yes, a bit unfairly) the 'peaceniks'; and ruminating on Hussein's human rights violations and the overly-bravado way he openly (arrogantly) defies UN stipulations. He even goes so far as to point out (what we all kind of thought, but tried to suppress) that an international clash with Saddam was something of an inevitability. Was it best now or later? Since Hitchens doesn't put much faith in the UN, whose known Hussein was a problem, but dragged its feat for ten years, Hitchens answers that now is better than later in dealing with Saddam.

The 'peaceniks' bear much of the brunt of Hitchens' wrath. Slogans like "no war for oil" and "But Hussein wasn't the worst of the bad guys," really get Hitchens' juice flowing. On the first, Hitchens asks us whether or not what the peaceniks are suggesting is to leave Iraq's oil resources in the hands of the self-same man who showed no hesitation in burning Kuwait's oil fields in the process of 'surrendering' them back to Kuwait? Is such a man not a huge danger to Iraq's oil fields as well? AS to whether we should treat Hussein with kids gloves simply because he is not the 'worst of the bad guys' here is Hitchens himself:

"Did the people who said this have any idea what they were saying? How many bad guys could they name who had violated the Genocide Convention on their own territory, invaded two neighboring states, openly financed suicide bombing, sought and nearly acquired numclear capacity and were within easy reach of 9 percent of the world's energy reserves...A man that not only murdered his mildest critics but has also murdered members of his own government...[?]" [p.9]

This should at very least whet people's appetite to learn more. And despite the lack of citations or extended essays, a book like this should at very least be read by the war's critics (myself included, of course) to remind them that, if anything, arguments - good arguments - can be made on all sides. Reading this book confirmed much of what I've long suspected. Yes, I am still a critic of the war, but despite what all too many people say, neither 'side' on this issue seems to have a so desperately wanted monopoly on the truth.

Christopher Hitchens is one of a new and insidious breed of political pundit. Like his fellow chickenhawk and laptop liberator, Andrew Sullivan, Hitchens is a transplanted Englishman who came to the US to tell us what our foreign policy should be, what constitutes American patriotism, and where our soldiers should be sent to die.

This book is a good example of his work. Hitchens became a right-wing courtier to such politcal titans as Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum during the Clinton impeachment era, and is now firmly ensconsed as a reliably right-wing commentator on a host of issues. Here he argues that Saddam was a threat that had to be eliminated--this despite that fact that, after over 700 US deaths, no WMD in sight, and the creation of our very own quagmire in the heart of the Middle East, we still have no good reason to be in Iraq. And Osama continues to plot.

Perhaps Hitchens should stick to what he does best--getting drunk, cheating on his pregnant wife, and making an ass of himself at Washington soirees. Political analysis is, to say the least, not his strong point.

I have heard Hitchens speak in a public forum and his anti-anything religious venom leaves him unable to understand anyone religiously motivated. He thinks of them as children incapable of rational thought and thus discounts them out of hand. Hence he will never understand Islam and what motivates the people in Iraq. He needs a healthy piece of humble pie before he goes anywhere or says anything about anybody. He comes off as extremely arrogant which turns many people off. This book reflects that mind set.

Hitchens' tidy little book makes several different cases to support going (or now, our having gone) to war against Iraq. His arguments have merit and reveal a lot of information about the situation there that is new to me. It is clear that Mr. Hitchens has a lot of personal connections to people in Iraq and Kurdistan, and it is for those people that I believe he sought the end of the Saddam regime. BUT (and it's a mighty big but) the case he makes here is clearly not the same one the Bush administration made. That's pretty well supported by now, so I won't get into that. I do want to know why we weren't given a better, clearer view of the situation in Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. If it was a good cause, why did we need to be manipulated by phony WMD evidence? I hope Mr. Hitchens can address these questions in future writings of his. I may not be on his side, but I enjoyed his book.

This is a very short book which appears to be a collection of newspaper columns rather than a book written about the topic. The theme is pretty simple and often repeated. That is that Saddam Hussien was a cruel and dictatorial ruler and it was a good idea to give him the boot. Clearly this was very much the case and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of current affairs will be aware of his invasions of Iran and Kuwait, the murder of his own people such as the Kurds using poison gas and the brutally oppressive nature of his regime.

However the war over Iraq was a complex issue. It is legal to invade another country because its government is bad? The answer is probably no, however there was no discussion about the complexity of the issue. Was it reasonable to invade Iran as it had breached the UN resolutions that had formally ended the first Gulf War? The answer was probably no but maybee. This is an issue again which depended on the structure of those resolutions. They had been breached but did that sanction US as opposed to US action.

The means used by the US and British government to explain the war to their own people appears in retrospect to be disingenuous if not dishonest. Suggestions were made that Iraq was importing uranium for a nuclear program. This was simply not true as was the allegation that large numbers of aluminium tubes were being imported to make a enrichment plant.

This book is in reality mono dimensional and whilst the one central point it makes is true, it fails to examine or discuss what was a complex reality. One might also add that its portrayal of the opposition to the war did not rise above caricature.