1. In foreign relations, he has been both an ardent critic of Kissinger for his involvement in war crimes1, but one of the few articulate and forthright supporters of both Iraq invasions2.
2. Upon the death of evalgelical Rev. Jerry Falwell, Hitchens said, reflecting the view of many non-fundamentalists, that "it's a pity that there is no hell for him to go."3 Yet there few liberals, religious or otherwise, bold enough to hold Mother Teresa in open contempt4.

On the positive side, he is one of the few intellectuals that is a denizen of and advocate for both of the Two Cultures. He cut his teeth as literary critic for the Times, and as Hitch-22 relates, he has spent much of life in literary circles that include his closest friends. I enjoy his discussions of literature immensely and, though I hate to admit it, often take away more from them than if I had read the original work. Hitchens has also been a staunch apologist for science and reason, as evidenced by a wonderful picture in Hitch-22 of him with the other 'Four Horseman' Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris around a table. As demonstrated in god is Not Great, Hitchens is one of the few non-science writers grasps the full implications of evolution by natural processes. Whether discussing self-aggrandizing politicians or sanctimonious religious leaders, Hitchens has a knack for reminding his readers that such pretense of super-humanity is fatuous, since there are no gods to preordain special privilege upon a few. Our common descent is also an empirical bulwark against claims of racial or national superiority, a common theme of Hitchens's writings.

There is no doubt that some have found Hitchens's positions over the years, if not at odds with one another, then at least in uncommon juxtaposition. What surprised me was how early in his life of contradictions began. In the chapter "Chris or Christopher?," Hitchens confesses to, and is unrepentant for, his 'double life' as both a blue jeans donning socialist protestor and British public school educated student of Balliol College, Oxford. This is not to imply that Hitchens could be characterized, as conservative pundits love to say, a 'limosine liberal'. Their parents scrapped enough money together to send the Hitchens boys to public school because their mother Yvonne wanted them to be part of the upper class, but Christopher was nevertheless genuinely involved in anti-war protests, worker's rallies, and Marxist agitation. Hitchens has been authentic in his travels too. He recounts an amusing and disturbing tale of his stint in a young revolutionaries work camp in Cuba. The visit to the one-party state included the withholding of his passport and restrictions on movement outside the camp. Throughout Hitch-22 there are stories of many other visits to volatile regions of the world, including all three members of the 'axis of evil', and Hitchens enjoins his more well-off readers to sojourn to a less fortunate nation annually.

Hitchens's apparent contradictions have been amplified in recent years by his post-9/11 ideological shift and, on some issues, marriage of convenience with hawkish conservatives. (He claims that his final falling out with the Left came under duress from bombing during the Milosevic wars when he "was brought to abrupt admission that, if the majority of my former friends got their way about non-intervention, there would be another genocide on European soil" [415]) While I do not always agree with the opinions of the Hitchens's post-ideological limbo (e.g. Iraq), it makes for refreshingly honest and liberated reading. Despite his turn away from radical politics, his ideals today are as unabashedly liberal as ever. He is as unflinching a critic of bigotry, fascism, jingoism, sectarianism, philistinism, and much else, without the excessive pandering to naïve multiculturalism or anti-American/Western sentiment that permeates some leftist tracts. To give one example, unlike much of the media, Hitchens refused to denounce Jyllands-Posten for publishing the infamous Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. He was especially outraged by those who blamed the victim when Islamic extremists attacked or threatened Danish citizens and embassies. Without hesitation, Hitchens's offered a vigorous defense of press freedom and the right to blaspheme5. The cartoon incident and the Rushdie affair, which is discussed at length in Hitch-22, reveal Hitchens's deeply principled character.

It has been more difficult for Hitchens's readers, including myself, to excuse or account for his unrepentant stance on Iraq. He rightly points out the irony that many 'liberal-minded' protesters were allied with not-so-liberal Islamic groups against regime change in fascist state. However, his only regrets are that the mission was poorly executed:

I probably now know more about the impeachable incompetence of the Bush administration than do many of those who would have left Iraq in the hand of Saddam (307).

How could Hitchens ignore the fact that a hasty, unfunded war planned by anti-government politicians and cronies was a mistake and distraction from the real terrorist targets in Afghanistan? Hitchens also dismisses the widespread use of false WMD reports to mislead the American public into war. These are frustrating evasions. Hitchens provides much more information regarding his thinking on Iraq, and I will leave the curious reader to evaluate the substance of his argument. I will add that in a postscript to the Iraq chapter, Hitchens details a moving correspondence he had with parents of an idealistic American soldier who enlisted after being inspired by Hitchens's writings. He was later killed in the line of duty. I mention this, and entreat you to read it, because it should dispel any myth that atheists are emotionless and unsentimental.

For the connoisseur of Hitchensiana, Hitch-22 is not his finest offering. I did not get the impression he much relished the subject matter. Readers expecting a personal account of Hitchens's family life will be disappointed. He includes one chapter for each of his parents, including his mother's grizzly suicide pact with a lover in Greece, but almost nothing of his brother, current or former wife, or their children. These are strange omissions for a memoir, but it's actually revealing of his personality in an odd way. Hitchens has dedicated his life to reporting and opining on the grand arc of history—revolution, war, genocide—and the ideals over which people will fight and die. It does not surprise me that, if Hitchens can be accused of any conceit, it is that he sees himself a part of the larger narrative. Even if they bring personal fulfillment, writing to the public about domestic bliss (or lack thereof) probably seems small. The best gauge of Hitchens's personality is a Vanity Fair personality quiz he answers in a chapter titled "Something of Myself." It is unintentionally telling that such a chapter title should even appear in a memoir. Hitchens is more generous to his friends Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, Edward Said, and James Fenton, all writers who receive their own chapters. I especially enjoyed his recollection of riffing off one another during protracted word games they devised.

Despite the books flaws, I'm glad that he wrote it. As he says in the prologue:

When I first formed the idea of writing some memoirs, I had the customary reservations about the whole conception being perhaps "too soon." Nothing dissolves this fusion of false modesty and natural reticence more swiftly than the blunt realization that the project could become, at any moment, ruled out of the question as having been undertaken too "late" (3).

Should his current battle with esophageal cancer6 be a losing one, I'm content that he did not make perfection the enemy of the good. A Hitch-22 is similar to a Catch-22, but also a protest against it. As the excerpt at the beginning of this review alludes, Hitchens does not accept that anti-totalitarian and anti-relativism are impossible to navigate between, but the road is narrow, imposing high tolls on its lonely travelers.