|
Subject: Better late than Hitchens (F9/11) Regarding Hitchens' review of Moore, I'll skip his first two paragraphs, which offer nothing serious to contemplate. So, paragraph three. Although I'm by no means an expert in rhetoric, his technique here seems textbook. He begins by talking about how he's not going to describe the film – dishonest, demagogic, a piece of crap, an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing – thereby associating all of those words in the reader's mind with the film. He gets to call it a piece of crap without calling it a piece of crap. It's a time-worn, technique ("I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him"), and he's certainly entitled to it, even if it demonstrates his own facility with being facile. Just thought I'd recognize his cleverness, since he went to all the trouble of trying to be clever. More to the point, we now know how he feels: the film is (1) a "sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness," and (2) a "spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." Next paragraph. Hitchen's point: Moore used to think Osama was "innocent" and now he thinks he's "guilty as hell," as shown by Moore's arguing against invading Afghanistan at Telluride and complaining about our prosecution in Afghanistan as inadequate in "F9/11." Yet, according to his own account, this is not what Moore said at all. He said Osama should legally be considered innocent until proven guilty – hardly a new concept – and that treating the accused as such is the American way – which it is, thank you very much, although not exclusively so, fortunately. If you want to pick on Moore here, he seems open to the argument that a non-citizen like Osama, who might easily be considered the #1 candidate for "illegal enemy combatant" status, is neither entitled nor deserving of the protections afforded actual citizens and legal combatants. But to say that by calling for Osama to benefit from the "innocent until proven guilty" principle enjoyed by the accused in American courts indicates that Moore thinks Osama is actually innocent way down deep, does not meet the minimum daily requirement of logic. Moore's point is that Osama should be treated like anybody else. And he's right. Not only because it's cracking good PR for our system of justice, and because any legal proceedings involving Osama and his ilk must be paragons of judicial grace to the end of being above reproach, thereby inclining observers to have the utmost faith in the result, but because he's right. You or I could blow up the entire city of New York and legally we'd still be entitled to the presumption of innocence until a court found us guilty. Is Osama entitled to the same? In the eyes of God, perhaps not. We mere mortals are unable to avail ourselves of those eyes, however. But by affording him this principle, we show the strength of our character and the strength of our system. This is how we do it, law-wise. It is, in fact, the American way. Obviously, if you want to get past the presumption of innocence you need to get the guy in a courtroom, so I'm not sure what Moore is thinking by tying innocence presumption to invading or not invading Afghanistan, if in fact that's what he did (I haven't been to Telluride). In any case, to attack Moore's stance in the movie because he once had a different one (or the opposite one, as Hitchens tries to maintain) is, again, good rhetoric, but poor logic. It's the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Example: Yesterday Mr. X declared "2+2=5." Today he asserts "2+2=4." Ms. Y responds by saying that X can't be right, because yesterday he was wrong, which obviously has nothing to do with whether 2+2 does in fact equal 4. In terms of logic, trying to undermine a current argument based on a past one, no matter how inconsistent it might be with the current one, is inherently fallacious. What's more, there's nothing inconsistent – or "sinister" or cowardly (to use Hitchens' terms) – about saying we shouldn't invade Afghanistan one day, and then, having invaded anyway, over Moore's objections apparently, for him then to criticize how the invasion was prosecuted. Moore's stance covering both Telluride and "F9/11" might aptly be summarized as, "I don't think you should invade, but if you do, don't screw around." Reasonable enough. The first five Bin Laden points speak for themselves. I take issue with the sixth. It doesn't follow that dedicating the film to the soldiers killed in these conflicts means Moore thinks their deaths were a waste, unless of course you are operating from the premise that the person offering the dedication is "sinister," morally frivolous, not serious, and cowardly, in which case you might be inclined to view a dedication from such a person with a skeptical, cynical eye. A more logical interpretation, but no less valid for being logical, is that Moore acknowledges their sacrifice, which is more than Hitchens seems able to muster, a sacrifice made all the more poignant since they offered it to a dubious cause. If nothing else, Moore seems to grasp that those soldiers are studies in loyalty for being willing to risk death even though they had every reason and incentive to question the ends, if not the means, of the conflict that claimed them. Twelfth paragraph ("It must be evident…"). His statement that "Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions" eases the reader past the fact that the assertion of contradictions is unsupported. There's no contradiction between the Bin Ladens' relationship with Bush through the Carlyle Group and any other point. There's no contradiction between the role of Saudi capital in the U.S. and any other point. There's no contradiction between the criticism of troop strength and any other point. There's no contradiction between the legitimacy and viability of the Afghan government and any other point. I've already addressed the sixth point. The only contradiction Hitchens cites comes from his encounter with Moore at Telluride, which he should know, is not in the film. What's more, it's not a contradiction, as noted above. Hitchens' assertion that Moore's points, which Hitchens restricts to Bin Laden and Afghanistan, are obliged to cohere is also not supported. He picks and chooses which of Moore's points to set up and emphasize, then fancies himself blithely knocking them over. It's intellectual onanism. Same paragraph, but now it's time for another rhetoric seminar. This time he uses the reductionist gambit, whereby everything considered is reduced to black and white terms. Something must either be one way, or another. The problem is, by merely presenting things in this construction ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy…or they do not") does not make it so. Moore's point isn't that the Saudis "run" U.S. policy, it's that they have undue influence, and, more important, that influence serves interests which, to put it charitably, are not aligned properly or broadly with U.S. interests. Even a rudimentary understanding of Saudi culture would make such either/or constructions useless. Such ideas might fit neatly into Hitchens' Western mind, but in analyzing something as complex and nuanced as Arab culture, they are of little help. This is a country where, after all, saying "I will give the matter further consideration" is just as likely to mean "I will give the matter further consideration" as it is to mean "no." The Saudis would never openly and directly oppose Bush policy, since that would cause Bush to lose face. To save face in Arab culture is a sign of high breeding and ethics, which means it's not only possible, but even likely, that the Saudis would not publicly oppose Bush's removal of the Taliban, yet do so privately, and that Westerners would not be privy to such inner workings. After all, Arab culture is, perhaps justifiably, as closed to Hitchens as his mind apparently is to dealing with the gray area at the corner of Saud and Western. As for the facts "deliberately left out," Hitchens is no slouch. To go along with his "emerging Afghan army" – which, at its current growth rate won't reach full strength until 2010 – he should have added the "emerging" U.S. presence, which was at about 4,000 in 2002, 13,000 in April 2004, and now stands at almost 18,000. As for NATO, this "broadest military alliance in history" was able to muster a total of three helicopters from 26 nations out of the Istanbul summit. If you include the Taiwanese semiconductors in that helicopter, you might justifiably boost the total of contributing nations to 27. An appeal for more assistance by Afghan president Karzai has gone unanswered. A few thousand troops have been promised, but nobody knows from where they will come. An estimate of 8,400 NATO troops by fall seems optimistic. This strikes me as neither broad, nor historic. But if Hitchens says this rivals any of our alliances during WWII then we must believe him, mustn't we, for Hitchens is an honorable man. As for elections, those appear to be on hold, with NATO shouldering much of the blame. So that leaves a highway, returning refugees, and the secular left favoring regime change. Hard to imagine how Moore didn't find time to fit those important developments into his movie. Next paragraph ("He prefers leaden sarcasm…"). Points to Hitchens for noting the distinction between sarcasm and irony, as it is useful and almost always ignored. To criticize Moore for preferring sarcasm of the leaden variety over irony, however, is like swatting somebody with a palm frond. Though you make contact, the impact is negligible. That the 9/11 commission found "nothing to complain of about the timing or arrangement of the flights" I'm sure is very reassuring to those for whom the timing and arrangement of the flights is a chief concern. However, it doesn't really address the fact that 162 Saudi Nationals were allowed to leave between 9/11 and 9/15, or that 26 people, most of them related to Osama bin Laden, were allowed to leave on 9/20. If he wants to say everything was above board in arranging the flights, and that Moore's speculation that it was not is erroneous, fine, I'll grant him that. I think a more pressing point is why these people were allowed to leave without being questioned. A minor quibble: Clarke is not "presented throughout" the movie. He makes a few appearances and is nowhere near being the "ethical hero" of the film. Next paragraph ("A film that bases itself…"). Once more Hitchens eases the reader past the meat and heads straight for the dessert, which would make sense if his point about Moore's points not cohering was valid. Except it's not. Put another way, Hitchens makes the understandable but misguided assumption that he has established sound arguments for the "big lie" and "big misrepresentation" of which he speaks, but he has not. This first sentence seems to exist for the sole purpose of making an awkward introduction to the "smaller falsehoods" conceit, which he then uses to focus on whatever catches his eye. As with the picture of Bush and Tony Blair, which is all the evidence Hitchens needs to prove that Bush actually was working in August 2001, despite all the clips of golf outings, ranch work, and strange dog anecdotes. Perhaps he'd do better if he merely cited the dazzling array of policy measures, which Bush hints at in the film, that would surely have followed such a productive period. Next paragraph ("The president is also captured…"). In this instance I think neither Hitchens nor Moore is on very solid ground. The clip doesn't prove what Moore would like it to, i.e., that Bush is a cavalier country club president with a disturbing detachment from the duties and responsibilities of his office. Yet, Hitchens' assertion that "that's what you get when catch a president on a golf course" is also a clunker. Like any moment that is so carefully staged to be spontaneous and off-the-cuff, the point has little to do with the content of what is said, and everything to do with the image that is trying to be shaped. It should be evident that the desired image is of a man capable of taking on the worst the world has to offer without it disrupting his (mediocre) golf game. Certainly, in the context of Moore's film, but also apart from it, this clip is not exactly a home run in that regard. Hitchens' reference to Eisenhower doesn't help much, since Ike played golf reportedly about 800 times while in office and is considered by author Peter Landau to be the third best golfer who happened also to have been president. Eisenhower on the golf course presents as "calm statesmanship" because Eisenhower was genuinely a golf nut. Being the former Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces and a five-star general probably didn't hurt either. Clinton would have presented as "charming" because he is a man who is capable of being charming. Bush on the golf course presents as "clumsy image shaper" because he is neither a golf nut nor particularly charming nor, dare we remind ourselves, the embodiment of military achievement, not because fat and mean old Michael Moore is being unfair. When it comes to the "seven minutes in Florida," when Bush learns of the second tower being struck, I see no evidence, in Moore or anywhere else, that most people think Bush "...should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work." Much more common is the reaction that he simply should have done something besides sit there. Something like saying to the teacher, "I'm sorry, but I've just been informed that I have to attend to a very important matter and I have to cut my visit short. I hope I'll be invited back another time." Then standing up and saying, "Now kids, I'm very sorry, but something very important has come up and I need to go deal with it. I'm going to try to come back another time and finish our visit. But until then I want you to promise me you'll listen to your teacher, work hard in school, and always do your best work. God bless you." I'll bet he could say all that in less than a minute, which would give him at least six minutes to figure out his ass from his pet goat. It's not unreasonable at such a moment to expect something besides stasis from our leaders. Do you think Giuliani would have just sat there like a lump? In fact, Giuliani provides a sparkling example of what sort of response is completely within the capabilities of some of our leaders, even one a few steps down the power ladder from Bush, and it had as much resemblance to Russell Crowe as reality does to Hollywood. Hitchens' defense of Bush amounts to, well, you can't pick on him for not doing anything since if he'd been all decisive people would still be picking on him. Ahem. First of all, does Hitchens really think Bush was thinking, "I'd better just sit here, since that will keep half of the Michael Moore community from thinking I'm trigger happy"? Second, bringing up Clinton and Eisenhower and Russell Crowe and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and FDR and Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with the documented fact that upon learning of the most serious terrorist attack on American soil our president was essentially paralyzed for almost seven minutes. Moore makes some shadowy suggestions about why Bush doesn't do anything and what he might be thinking about, but that's nothing compared to the stark reality of Bush "in action," or rather, his inaction. Next paragraph ("But it won't…"). Hitchens leads here with the idea that Iraqi sovereignty is a "half-baked" fantasy, apparently because of international sanctions. Now, I'm no expert in foreign relations, but it seems to me that one of the best signs that you have a sovereign nation is when countries choose sanctions against you, as opposed to, oh, say, invading. Sovereignty simply means "freedom from external control." If anything, sanctions validate sovereignty, since presumably were there not at least a modicum of respect for a nation's sovereignty the sanctioners would simply exert said "external control" at the time and place of their choosing. (Another minor point: wouldn't a "half-baked" fantasy be logically closer to reality and therefore preferable to a fully baked one? Just a thought.) Operation Iraqi Freedom seems to have done more to turn Iraqi sovereignty into a pipe dream (no pun intended), at least in the near term, than any program of sanctions ever did. As for the "peaceable kingdom" sequence, Moore's presentation seems to me a quite reasonable representation of what the impact of our attack was like for most Iraqis. One day everything's pretty normal, next day you're in hell. Our version of the story has been told over and over again. There's no question Saddam was a brutal oppressor. Moore does not owe equal time to the well-known atrocities of the Baathists. His point is that in weighing the costs of this war, particularly the moral ones, it's disingenuous to exclude the impact on the kids flying kites or being tossed mangled and dead into the backs of trucks, or the smiling shoppers, or the keening mothers. In Hitchens' black and white world this might be the "insurgent" side, but out here in the real world it's called the "human" side. Very few seem willing to speak for them, to tell their story, to honor their presumably involuntary sacrifice, to suggest that they too should not have died in vain, or that they should not have died at all. Moore is. Yes, civilian casualties are a fact of war, but in this conflict, where the remaining enemy has no headquarters and wears no uniform, when we supposedly have the most sophisticated weaponry the world has ever known, for Hitchens to hide behind collateral damage as the price that must be paid for the destruction of Saddam's evil reign is a spasm of moral cowardice that dwarfs anything of which Moore might be guilty. Next paragraph ("That this…"). To be clear, what Moore says in his film is that Iraq has never attacked or threatened to attack the United States, nor murdered a single American citizen, slightly different from Hitchens' take. Hitchens' response is that Abu Nidal based himself in Baghdad. While this is certainly grounds for reproach toward Baghdad, it hardly seems like justification for invading a country or jeopardizing one single Iraqi civilian, let alone American soldiers. As for Saddam's boasts, if Hitchens takes them seriously he may quite literally be the only person on the planet who does. As for Hitchens' references to events during Desert Storm, Moore gets off on a technicality, since he is apparently applying the Geneva Convention definition of murder, which of course would not apply to soldiers killed in the line of duty. What's more, while it's true Saddam talked a good game during Desert Storm, at no point has anyone ever considered him a credible threat to "attack the United States." What's more, Saddam seems to have carefully avoided using such direct language, preferring instead lines like the mother of all battles, and Allah is on our side, and we will resist the invaders. Now the plot against Bush Sr. no one seems to dispute. Only one problem: it failed, so once again Moore is off on a technicality perhaps, although again, no one is arguing that Saddam was a good guy. Moore implicitly suggests that resentment, which is the proper response Hitchens calls for when somebody plots to kills one of our former presidents, might not quite be reason enough to justify a policy and practice of pre-emptive war. Iraqis shooting at our planes "every day, for 10 years," while belligerent, also doesn't really qualify as attacking or threatening to attack the United States, nor murder. I don't care how much international justification we had for being there, it is simply naïve to think that our planes would not take fire patrolling Iraqi air space. It's also something of a stretch to view Iraqis shooting at our planes as an offensive maneuver. No planes, no shooting. Hardly the definition of an attack. The rest of the paragraph goes on to cite instances of Saddam offering haven to bad guys, celebrating the 9/11 attacks, spewing anti-Semitism from his media, and supposedly negotiating to buy a North Korean missile system, which, no matter how true, neither contradicts Moore's point in the film, nor offers justification for invading and jeopardizing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, no matter how much Hitchens stomps his foot about it. Next paragraph ("Thus, in spite of…"). Hitchens miraculously misses Moore's point once again. It's not that Saddam was "no problem at all," it's that he had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Assuming we want to get to the bottom of 9/11, we went after the wrong guy, which is why Moore raises the question of whether getting to the bottom of 9/11 has ever been Bush's goal. Given the focus on Saddam and non-existent WMD and the lukewarm participation in the 9/11 commission, it's a question worth raising. While Saddam is barbaric, the resources committed to ousting him bear no relationship to the level of threat he posed which, according to about 90% of the rest of the world, was about zilch. Hitchens' speculation about these things being "allowed to happen under any other administration" itself raises the question of whether Hitchens is as ignorant as Moore looks, since they were allowed to happen – and sometimes supported – under several administrations. Next paragraph ("The same…"). Here Hitchens seems unable to draw the distinction between overlooking intelligence of a gathering terrorist threat and warnings issued to the population at large. I would hope that our intelligence professionals charged with such matters are smart enough and capable enough to operate covertly to dismantle terrorist plots. Lord knows, they have been in the past. So, in answer to his question, no, taking the harbingers of 9/11 seriously would ideally have led to covert operations so as not to (1) alarm the public, (2) reveal the extent of our intelligence, and (3) provide any sort of moral victory to the enemy for scaring us. To answer his other question, yes, I have met people who have not had absurd encounters with idiotic security staff, namely, myself. I don't recall any police in the film complaining they didn't have the funding or manpower to perform stop-and-searches. I do recall an Oregon state trooper driving along a stretch of coastal highway he said he was able to patrol something like once a week, and another saying that on a particular night there was something like nine state troopers on duty for the entire state of Oregon. I also don't recall Moore saying anything about wanting more intrusion at the airports. He does point out that four books of matches and two lighters is far more than shoe bomber Richard Reid needed and that Big Tobacco has the clearest incentive and means to influence this policy. Have you ever seen what you can do with a match and a can of hairspray? Instant flame thrower. Next paragraph ("Circling back…"). I think Hitchens answers his own question here. The Saudis apparently have no love lost for the Shi'ites, nor would a rival oil power please them. Obviously, given the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, an Iraq rebuilt around U.S. interests would offer the Saudis a far greater benefit than a freewheeling Saddam. The notion of Iraq as a buffer regime is ridiculous. Far from fundamentalist or reactionary, Saddam's regime was positively secular compared to the Saudi's, let alone the Taliban, which makes toppling Saddam an even easier pill for the Saudis to swallow, nay, a potential victory for Islam. Given this, Moore's preferences are irrelevant. The Saudis knew they could not prevent a U.S. response in the region. Given the ties laid out in the film, it should surprise no one, not even Hitchens, that the U.S. response apparently seems to maximize Saudi interests. Next paragraph ("I have already said…"). Hitchens does his irony-ing. Since Hitchens won't dwell on blacks soldiering for about the last 150 years, let us not dwell on blacks being at the bottom of the economic ladder for those very same 150 years, nay, longer. As to Hitchens' draft question, he really should consider a fencing career, for he once again sidesteps Moore's point brilliantly. In plain English, by saying that not enough troops were sent doesn't mean we don't have enough troops, it means not enough were sent. The draft question belongs to Hitchens, not Moore. As for who signs up, Moore clearly points out that recruiting is a sales job and that the prospects are not evenly distributed. His point isn't that this is wrong, or evil, but rather that the poor and of color segments of our population carry more than their share of the burden of defending our country. Perhaps that's always been true. Perhaps it always will be. That doesn't remove the irony. Next paragraph ("Indeed, Moore's affected…"). Once again Hitchens has to cite Moore dialogue that's not in the movie. Apparently, since Moore thinks a plane full of blacks would have kicked terrorist ass, his concern for poor blacks for whom the military is one of their best career options is "affected and ostentatious," or so Hitchens would have us believe, and he is, after all, an honorable man. But let's throw in that this war is being "brought to our cities" and Moore's inability to recognize courage, just for good measure. If you can follow the logic you are either much more or much less lucid than I. Next paragraph ("Moore has announced…"). Hostile questioning? Just today (7/27) Moore was scheduled to appear on The O'Reilly Factor at the convention. "Pompously establish?" One wonders if Hitchens could watch Moore bake a potato without erupting in pejoratives. Fact checkers and lawyers? Heaven forefend. Pressure to drop the film? I suppose $94 million is a lot of pressure. Next paragraph ("However, I think…"). Hitchens dusts off his spurs. "Any time…Any show. Any place." Now that is a fight I'd pay to see. As for agreeing about the film's phoniness, please see the previous 4,370 words. Next paragraph ("Some people…"). Earth to Hitchens. It's not a documentary, just because there's no other category for it. Moore himself calls it, accurately, an op-ed piece. As for ellipses, I suppose we are to assume therefore Hitchens despises Bush, since I can think of a State of the Union or two, not to mention a few other speeches and documents spawned under our current administration, that seem to be missing a few dot-dot-dots. No, Moore doesn't attempt to be objective and he doesn't pass up cheap shots. But the fact is, neither do the people he attacks. I see no reason for Moore to abide by Hitchens' double standard. Get over it. Last paragraphs. Hitchens again tries to fit Moore with the pacifist, relativist collar. Again he fails. The Orwell quotation reads "In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous." Moore's point is that this war is not about what Bush says it's about. Bush has sold us a war with an invisible enemy that is everywhere and nowhere, posing an imminent yet gathering threat. It's the ideal foil for any leader whose character is not strong enough to resist it (there's a good story on the subject by Tolkien). A fearful populace is a controllable populace. For such a contemptible man, as Hitchens views him, Moore certainly seems to be influential. How else to explain him holding the fate of Milosevic, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Taliban, and Iraq in his chubby little hands? In that light, I certainly am thankful after all that we have things like the CIA, FBI, DoD, NATO and the United Nations to stand up to his dreadful sway. Yet to view Moore as a pacifist – even a practically omnipotent one – is to completely misread both him and the phenomenon of his movie. He clearly states at the end of the film that the people who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend the rest of us deserve one thing above all else, and that is not to be put in harm's way on false pretenses. The movie's message isn't that war is wrong, it's that Bush is wrong. Wrong for the country. Wrong for the world. Wrong for the present. Wrong for the future. Alas, honorable, or not, so is Hitchens. |