Balkans Quote by Christopher Hitchens
““The neo-cons, or some of them, decided that they would back Clinton when he belatedly decided for Bosnia and Kosovo against Milosevic, and this even though they loathed Clinton, because the battle against religious and ethnic dictatorship in the Balkans took precedence. This, by the way, was partly a battle to save Muslims from Catholic and Christian Orthodox killers. That impressed me. The neo-cons also took the view, quite early on, that coexistence with Saddam Hussein was impossible as well as undesirable. They were dead right about that. They had furthermore been thinking about the menace of jihad ism when most people were half-asleep. And then I have to say that I was rather struck by the way that the Weekly Standard and its associated voices took the decision to get rid of Trent Lott earlier this year, thus removing an embarrassment as well as a disgrace from the political scene. And their arguments were on points of principle, not 'perception.' I liked their ruthlessness here, and their seriousness, at a time when much of the liberal Left is not even seriously wrong, but frivolously wrong, and babbles without any sense of responsibility. (I mean, have you read their sub-Brechtian stuff on Halliburton…?) And revolution from above, in some states and cases, is—as I wrote in my book A Long Short War —often preferable to the status quo, or to no revolution at all.””
About This Quote
Source Book: A Long Short War by Christopher Hitchens, 2004
Hitchens praises neo‑conservatives for prioritizing anti‑dictatorship and anti‑jihad stances, criticizing liberal complacency and advocating decisive, principle‑driven politics.
In simple terms: He admires their willingness to act against perceived threats despite personal dislike.
Support decisive, principle‑based action against tyranny.
Themes
Mood
Type
When to use this quote
- foreign policy decisions
- political party leadership changes
- public discourse on terrorism
- media influence on politics
Key Concepts
Questions to Reflect On
- What are the risks of valuing ruthlessness over deliberation?
- How can principled action avoid becoming dogmatic?
Their approach can overlook nuanced diplomacy and may foster authoritarian tendencies.