From vastleft.com:

Among right-of-center journalists, Christopher Hitchens can be a refreshingly independent thinker.

But his recent Haditha piece finds him playing the partisan hack, with a cheesy attempt to downplay an incident that's proving thorny for war hawks.

The article's title and putative case are "Why Haditha Isn't My Lai." I read it with interest, as I'd previously conflated the two. I was eager to see if the estimable Mr. Hitchens might, indeed, establish that the two atrocities — the latter alleged — were not at all comparable.

Comparing the two is, of course, to suggest that America has again lost moral authority in wartime, and is thus impaired in the battle for civilian "hearts and minds."

If it were relevant, one could further define the parallels as atrocities committed in an unnecessary war. When the likes of William F. Buckley, George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Bill O'Reilly have declared the Iraq War a misadventure, it would seem that that point is well proven — unless one wants to advocate for the necessity of the Vietnam War.

In any case, if the charges are true, Haditha should rate as a bona fide war atrocity: the execution, in their homes, of roughly two dozen members of innocent families, by occupying soldiers. Not as many as My Lai, to be sure, but not exactly Geneva Convention conduct.

Let's look at the Hitchens article paragraph by paragraph, using the blog convention of "shorter," in this case, shorter Hitchens (paraphrases in italics):

1. For the sake of argument, assume the Haditha charges are true. Such an occurrence was inevitable, because the U.S. policy to shoot anyone that comes close was courting disastrous uprisings.

Response: The implication here is that the alleged circumstances of Haditha in some way resemble the war zone or "disastrous uprising" situation where a shoot-first, ask-questions-later policy might conceivably apply. This is pure sleight-of-hand.

2. Haditha is what happens when firepower isn't used with "exact discrimination" that's "meticulously observed."

Response: Hitchens implies that a fine line was crossed. Apparently, he thinks summarily executing three-year-old girls is a grey area.

3. Comparisons between My Lai and Haditha are "glib talk" and "propaganda and hot air." The circumstances of Vietnam made large-scale atrocities like My Lai "overwhelmingly probable."

Response: Given that Hitchens's first point was that atrocities in Iraq were inevitable, he is unmaking his case here: inevitable in Iraq, and well-nigh inevitable in Vietnam.

4. The Viet Cong were, at least relatively speaking (if not moreso), a noble adversary of admirable standards. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, fight dirty.

Response: This is Chris The Contrarian, having a little grandstanding fun by waxing nostalgic for the good old days of fighting Charlie. All I ask is that he sell this story, in person, at the nearest V.A. hospital or American Legion post, and then I'll gladly concede this round.

5. Saddam's regime schemed up a "charming policy," the use of suicide bombers to foster distrust between Americans and Iraqi civilians. "Any coalition solder who relieves his rage by discharging a clip" would play into Zarqawi's hands.

Response: As unconscionable as suicide terrorism is, Hitchens should acknowledge the context — the then-pending conquering of Iraq by an army attacking under false pretenses. Through sheer hubris, the Bush administration failed to expect that many Iraqis would find our invasion somewhat lacking in the charm department. More relevant here, Hitchens conveniently shifts the scenario from two dozen executed civilians to "any coalition soldier... discharging a clip."

6. It's disturbing to experience the rebellious tactics of people whose country you're occupying.

Response: No doubt. But how does this help prove that My Lai and Haditha are nothing like each other?

7. Some people think the U.S. should have started with a stronger force; additional troops are, in a sense, additional targets. Avoidance of potential killing of innocent Iraqis restricted the U.S. from bombing enemy targets, such as Mullah Omar, who thus survived to claim more coalition victims. The fact that there were no WMDs wouldn't have prevented Abu Ghraib. Only pacifists "have the right to object to every casualty of war," and if they were heeded, various terrible dictators including Saddam would still be in power. If liberals would drop their moralizing, the clarity of the U.S.'s actions in Iraq would be evident.

Response: As the piece concludes here, the whole "I knew My Lai; My Lai was a friend of mine; Haditha, you're no My Lai" premise has been completely forgotten, as have the alleged crimes perpetrated on the citizens of Haditha. In fact, nowhere in the article is there a moment of pause to consider that, if true, the massacre of twenty-plus innocent civilians by our soldiers might be in some way regrettable. In its place, we get a potpourri of potshots at liberals who fail to see the crystalline logic of a disastrous war predicated on a series of now-debunked rationales. Also, as it happens, today brings the good news of Zarqawi's death, which I'm sure Hitchens does not take as absolution for delays caused by the "save the Iraqi civilians" bleeding hearts. I wonder if that also goes for President Bush, who reportedly failed to take out Zarqawi despite several opportunities, so as not to diminish an Iraq War rationale.

If Hitchens has an argument that debunks Haditha-as-My-Lai-II, I look forward to reading it. As it stands, though, his mission stands rather blatantly unaccomplished.

(via)