Wednesday, May 25, 2005

My favorite drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist

A few of my fellow local bloggers (here and here) have been cheering for George Galloway, the British official who rebuked a Senate panel investigating the UN oil-for-food scandal. Here's another take from Christopher Hitchens, who Galloway called a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist."

TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that, having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.

Even if the matter of subornation and bribery had never arisen, there would remain the crucial question of Iraq itself. It was said during the time of sanctions on that long-suffering country that the embargo was killing, or had killed, as many as a million people, many of them infants. Give credit to the accusers here. Some of the gravamen of the charge must be true. Add the parasitic regime to the sanctions, over 12 years, and it is clear that the suffering of average Iraqis must have been inordinate.

There are only two ways this suffering could have been relieved. Either the sanctions could have been lifted, as Galloway and others demanded, or the regime could have been removed. The first policy, if followed without conditions, would have untied the hands of Saddam. The second policy would have had the dual effect of ending sanctions and terminating a hideous and lawless one-man rule. But when the second policy was proposed, the streets filled with people who absolutely opposed it. Saying farewell to the regime was, evidently, too high a price to pay for relief from sanctions.

Hitchens remains the most intellectually rigorous defender of going to war in Iraq, WMDs or no WMDs. He still hasn't convinced me, but the moral weight of his arguments is not easily dismissed.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also would recommend to you the very fine essay by John Burns, Baghdad Bureau Chief of the N.Y. Times and longtime war correspondent.

Nut graf (as you would say):

"Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay."

Galloway is a greedy, venal, lying poppinjay, but he's a politician. It's doubly damning to see members of the Fourth Estate vacate their roles as watchdogs for the downtrodden (in this case, the Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, Christians, communisists and dissidents) because it's not PC or pragmatic enough.

Why champion the families off the death camps when you can instead curry favor with the despots?

2:41 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home