April 28, 2003

Hitchens on Chalabi

Hitchens posts a defense of Chalabi in today's Slate.

In news stories as well as in opinion columns, it is repeatedly stated that Chalabi hasn't been in the country for many years—or since 1958. This contradicts my own memory and that of several other better-qualified witnesses. They recall him in northern Iraq many times and for long periods in the 1990s, helping to organize opposition conferences and to broker an agreement between the opposing Kurdish factions. He frequently risked his life in this enterprise; indeed it was for criticizing the CIA's own ham-fisted efforts in Kurdistan at the time that he incurred the lasting hatred of the agency. And since his activity on Iraqi soil was reported on several occasions in such journals of record as the New York Times, it must be something more than objectivity (or, dare I hint, something less) that informs the current animus.

Yasser Arafat hasn't been in Jerusalem for some considerable time, after all, and before his disastrous return to Gaza, he hadn't been on Palestinian soil for decades. The Dalai Lama hasn't been in Tibet since the 1950s. Perhaps these leaders should be criticized more for being out of touch. But the fact remains that they are not. More important, both Arafat and His Holiness consider themselves to be axiomatic and self-evident leaders while Chalabi does not. But the fact remains that his forces provided invaluable help and intelligence in the recent campaign, and it is to the Iraqi National Congress that several senior Baathists have recently chosen to surrender. If this does not demand praise, surely it merits a little recognition?


Considering this and the previous post, there must be some future in hyphenated Americans who are invited to represent their home countries to the United States, no matter how distant.

Posted by mbowen at April 28, 2003 07:39 AM

Chalabi may or may not have "incurred the lasting hatred" of the CIA -- he certainly seems to have remained in friendly contact with ex-DCI James Woolsey, see for instance:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000723mag-woolsey.html

Posted by: Charles Cameron at April 28, 2003 11:16 PM

That was a remarkable article for a number of reasons. You certainly picked on that grabbed my attention. Woolsey has a new place in my lobes.

I've often wondered why DCIs haven't lasted very long over the past decade and why they disappear from public view at the end. If Washington can be that fickle and inconsistent, there's much to hope for in the changing of the guard. It must be the reason these old warhorses don't go off, like Gore Vidal, to Italian seclusion.

Posted by: mbowen at May 1, 2003 07:49 AM