Well, maybe you're right, but I'm just wondering, are you basing this on anything in particular?
Yes, on his support for the largest imperialist military conflict of the 21st century ("The War on Terror"), which at this point has lasted 4 years longer than WWII. I understand that may not be enough evidence for you, but it's more than enough for me.
I'd be interested to see it. It's convenient to throw those who might (allegedly) air views that are implicitly pro-Imperialism into a box and say "Fuck them", but it isn't necessarily correct to do so.
Well, that's what I do and that's what I'm going to continue doing. That doesn't mean I will reject any analysis they make out-of-hand, for knowledge and accurate analysis is not the exclusive domain of the righteous-- even Hitler made some good observations-- nor does it mean I will disagree with them on every issue (e.g. I agree with Snitchens on Palestine for the most part and I agree with the racist, authoritarian trash Pat Buchanan on NAFTA). However it does mean I'm going to identify those people for what they are and dismiss their broader world-view, and always keep that world-view in mind while they are discussing specific situations.
I've only dipped into Hitch 22, not fully read it, and his writings of Vietnam, Castro, and whatnot, and not particularly interested or informed. This is your territory, politics guy. Educate me.
Nah. I'm no expert on Snitchens. He's really intelligent and well-educated (and entertaining) crank, but I still think he's a crank. He went from an intellectually combative polemicising gadfly who opposed imperialism to an intellectually combative polemicising gadfly who supports imperialism. Now it's interesting to read an article by such a person from time to time, but I do not consider such people (like for example his former friend on the left and now bitter enemy Alexander Cockburn) to be serious political theorists, strategists or activists, thus I'm not gonna spend a lot of my political reading making myself an expert on their views on every topic.
I'd just like to add that I don't agree with all of Hitchens' views. I do find myself agreeing more often than not, though.
Actually, were I to go through every one of his current positions on every fucking topic he holds a position on, it's possible I may too. Problem is that the main thing I disagree with him on is big enough for me to consider him to be an enemy of social progress, freedom and justice, no matter how well he may come out on the other issues.
It's kinda like when you meet someone who you really get along with, have a lot in common with, even share a lot of political and social opinions with, then you find out they hate Jews or [insert group they're hateful and bigoted against here]-- you may think they're great other than that, but that one issue is just too big for you to dismiss and if you can't get them past it, you're not gonna be friends with them.
Snitchens supports wars of imperialist hegemony and conquest that are spilling blood and wrecking lives to make a few wealthy and powerful people wealthier and more powerful-- wars which, in the long run (and often in the short run), will be counterproductive to the goals of liberation and social progress that Snitchens purports are being assisted by these conflicts. That's just too big of an issue for me to get past and focus primarily on the common ground I may have with him.
That isn't necessarily true, though. You'd find a lot of Iraq exiles supporting a 'pro-Imperial' war, just so they could go home. Hell, they were were on permanent protest in Trafalgar Square, desperate for intervention in the lead up to the war. They would also be automatically pro-Imperialist too, according to that standard.
Excellent fucking point, and a pretty big exception to my statement (though I would say it's an exception which tests the general rule) but a couple of things all the same:
(1) That these exiles have chosen to support imperialist war as a means to a non-imperialist end does not mean this is their only option. I met an Iraqi union delegation visiting Philadelphia, this was in 2004 or 2005 and they had varying opinions on the war. Some, like the exiles you describe, early on supported the war as the means to end the rule of Saddam, and supported continued occupation until the situation was stabilized. Others did not favor the war but also did not strongly oppose it due to practical considerations of wanting to get rid of Saddam and some of them did not actively oppose the occupation as they worried they would be wiped out by remaining Baathists or Islamist militias if the US pulled out too soon. Then some supported the war to overthrow Saddam but wanted immediate withdrawal of occupation forces once this goal was achieved. Still others, like this one Communist union leader who had spent almost 20 years in prison under Saddam, opposed the war from the beginning and believed the Iraqi people should liberate themselves without any assistance from the imperialists.
(2) Snitchens ain't no Iraqi exile. His stated reasons for supporting the war are little different than that of the neocons, who, in my opinion, are very clearly supportive of imperialist goals.
EDIT:
Actually, although I still consider my statement that supporting imperialists wars means one is pro-imperialist as generally correct, your challenge was great enough that I feel compelled to reformulate it in a more nuanced manner--
I. In the majority of circumstances support for an imperialist war objectively makes one pro-imperialist even when one subjectively believes otherwise.
II. So far I see two possible exceptions:
(A) An individual or group has a material interest in the ends of an imperialist war which is
(1) morally and materially compelling
(2) independent of the imperialists' goals
(3) reasonably believed by the individual or group to only be achievable in the foreseeable future by means of imperialist war
--e.g. the Libyan rebels and Iraqi exiles/legitimate, progressive resisters to Saddam
(B) Support for one party to an inter-imperialist war when the person(s) supporting that party reasonably believe the outcome of the other party being victorious would be qualitatively and significantly worse-- e.g. if Nazi Germany and its imperialist Axis partners had defeated their imperialist Allied rivals in WWII.
Would you consider this to be an acceptable reformulation of my statement?
Topic: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....