Hitch Still Unhinged

Christopher Hitchens gave a speech to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's annual gathering, eloquently defending enligntenment values.  Crowd loved him.  Standing ovation when he was introduced.

Then he wrapped it up by calling for the killing of so many Muslims that the survivors cry uncle.

PZ Myers was there:

[Hitch maintained the] way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.

This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us.

I like this deep logic:

Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you...

Myers points out the obvious:

… which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.

That's just it.  We can continue to try to punish and bully a billion people into submission.

Or we can look to cut a deal (which will involve not invading their countries and creating a Palestinian state that can muddle through, with lots of charity).  Either project will take decades, but one involves much less expense, carnage and sacrificed freedom.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

This is insane. I entirely agree that we are looking at a clash of civilizations, that there are huge incompatibilities between different parts of the world, and that we face years and years of all kinds of conflict between us, with no easy resolution.

However, one can only resolve deep ideological conflicts by the extermination of one side in video games and cartoons.

Sometimes I think the Regime Change doctrine was inspired by Return of the Jedi.  Kill the Emperor, all done.  Cue fireworks and Ewok party. Rebuild democracy.  Easy, right?

It's not going to work in the real world. We can't simply murder enough Moslems to weaken them into irrelevance, and even if we could, that's not the kind of culture to which I want to belong.

I think that 'final solution' strategy was tried once.

And here is my favorite part.  Myers articulates a positive vision for the future worth amplifying and repeating in the coming years:

A clash of whole civilizations is a war of ideas.

The way we can 'conquer' is on the cultural and economic level: the West should not invade and destroy, but should instead set an example, lead with strength, and be the civilization that every rational citizen of the other side wants to emulate.

Yes, there will be wars and skirmishes, because not everyone on either side is rational, but the bloodshed isn't the purpose.

Contain aggressors. Entice their people.  Get stronger and richer by not fighting wars.  Show by example they can do it, too.

Seems pretty...rational.

The Q & A was disputive.  Applause faint.  People walked out during the talk.  I liked this lady:

I heard one woman sing a few bars of "Onward, Christian soldiers" as she left...

Pretty good joke at a convention of atheists.