Registered user login:

Am I a dwarf or a horseman?

Christopher Hitchens

Published 28 June 2007

It's an honour to be mentioned in the same breath as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. We could become known as the Four Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse

The departure of Tony Blair is a huge gratification to all those who want a quiet life and all those who wish that Britain would be a mediocre power. Ever since his Chicago speech in 1999, when he celebrated the downfall of Milosevic and warned of an inevitable confrontation with Saddam Hussein - this at a time when George W Bush was governor of Texas - he has been important to all of us who believe that peaceful coexistence with totalitarian and aggressive regimes (and ideologies) is neither possible nor desirable. It is this point of principle that ought to eclipse all others. Alas, and thanks to those who temporised on that question, Iraq was allowed to decay to a stage where a ruined and maimed and traumatised society was in our future no matter what we did. The critical thing was to be certain that we, and not Saddam, chose the timing of the confrontation. Up until then, the initiative had always been left to him. If Coalition forces had not arrived in Baghdad, the imploded country would by now have been invaded by Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia and become a Rwanda or a Congo on the Gulf. Bad as things are, they would have been infinitely worse, and have necessitated a later international intervention on much more adverse terms.

Of course, in a large swathe of Iraq, things are enormously better than they were in 2003. I allude to the three northern Kurdish provinces. In these areas, the mullahs and the militias do not hold sway, and open fratricide between Kurds has ceased. Building sites are busy, schools are full and a form of democracy and free press prevails. In the few successful Iraqi ministries and army units, Kurds are prominent. The forces of "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" and their Ba'athist allies tend to avoid confrontation with Kurdish peshmerga forces, who really did conduct an "insurgency" against the former dictatorship and who truly deserve the name of a "resistance". When I hear people calling for our withdrawal from Iraq, I always want to know how they feel about abandoning a people who are much more numerous than the Palestinians and who have made much better use of their opportunity for self-determination. I might add that the Kurds, even when they were being gassed and deported en masse, never made use of disgusting tactics such as suicide-bombing.

Salman's security

The bogus row over the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie has none of the drama of the original one. People seem to be going through the motions of being "offended". It made me feel almost nostalgic to see characters such as George Galloway complaining about how much Salman's security had once cost all of us taxpayers. If the chairman of BP had been hit by a fatwa from a theocratic dictator, I doubt we would have heard that same mean-spirited talk about the price of his safety. And if Salman had turned down the offer of a knighthood, I could have written the headlines myself ("Rushdie snubs Queen shock").

A rising tide lifts all boats

British journalists seem to make the vulgar assumption that if they can find the lowest motive, they have identified the correct one. I gave a blurb to Tina Brown's Diana book and found myself attacked by some creep who described it as a quid pro quo for all the largesse she has heaped on me. I think I wrote for her three times in 30 years.

Tina is no longer commissioning pieces and in any case I have a best-seller of my own to promote. God Is Not Great has proved to me that a rising tide can lift all boats: the ground for it was seeded by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, whose superior work has put the godly on the defensive and cheered up secular America. (Polls show that unbelievers are now the country's fastest-growing minority.) It's an honour to be mentioned in the same breath as these men. If there were seven of us, the clever press would call us dwarves. As we are a quartet, we are doomed to be called the Gang of Four or the Four Musketeers. My own nomination - the Four Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse - is a bit cumbersome and I'd welcome suggestions.

"God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion" is published by Atlantic Books (£17.99)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

BillN
29 June 2007 at 08:35

Do you think Tony's moral vision flowed from his Christianity? It is ironic that you praise the vision of Tony Blair, the most openly Chrisitan PM in living memory.

You should have give him a mention in your God section. He has handed over large chunks of our education system to Christian organisations and to evangelicals who teach creationisn as part of their curriculum.

Klatu
02 July 2007 at 13:07

One 'truth' that has clearly emerged from the slanging match beween atheist factions like Mr. C.H. and the religious is that neither secular nor religious thought can offer an ethical conception or alternative able to resolve any of the problems facing the modern world and secure the future of peace. They may in fact be setting the stage, by exposing this vacumn in human moral development and the limitations of natural reason, for the very purpose of 'transcending our prehistory' leaving both atheist and religious in the dust!

Admin
05 July 2007 at 14:27

From letters to the editor:

Dear Editor,

Christopher Hitchens is forever moaning that the modern left has sold out on its principles. Strange therefore to find him cheering a gong for Salman Rushdie. Has he forgotten that the left oppose the honours system?

Regards

Keith Flett

Admin
05 July 2007 at 14:28

From letters to the editor:

Dear Sir,

In response to Christopher Hitchens's request for a name that he and his fellow advocates for aetheism can adopt, why not "The Brights"? According to Hitchens on the radio last week, this was the suggestion made by Richard Dawkins - presumably in contrast to "The Not Very Brights".

Aetheism smacks of religion; a religion of intellectuals. It's an acknowledgement of the crowning status of their own cleverness which is beholden to nobody or nothing else. Aetheism has contributed much. Yet it carries an undertow of contempt - not a million miles from the contempt once felt by some middle-class Trotskyists for working-class Labour voters supposedly too stupid to embrace Marxism.

The love of Christ, the moral truths of Judaism and the compassion of Islam - despite their aberrations - are vehicles for social justice in which the poor and oppressed have primacy over the intellectual. This may explain the vitriol of certain aetheists which, ironically, borders on the irrational. Given the choice between that yearning for God which is the foundation of all religious compassion or worshipping at the altar of my own cleverness, I'll settle for not being very bright.

Yours Sincerely,

Glyn Davies

Aberdare

Rhondda-Cynon-Taf

AlwaysLookOnTheBrightSide
11 July 2007 at 11:26

In reply to Glyn Davies, I think that Dan Dennett suggests 'Supers' as the opposite of 'Brights'. This is an equally positive word and hints at the supernatural beliefs that separate theists from atheists.

Incidentally, your comment that atheism smacks of religion reminds me of the line: atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

taghioff.info
17 May 2008 at 14:11

How about the Marx brothers?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?