Any Regrets, Hitch?

Is Christopher Hitchens having second thoughts about switching teams? Not really; he's just trying to have his cake and eat it, too:

The thing that I most underestimated is the thing that least undermines the case. And it's not something that I overlooked, either. But the extent of lumpen Islamization in Iraq, on both the Khomeinist and Wahhabi ends (call them Shiite and Sunni if you want a euphemism that insults the majority), was worse than I had guessed.

He does conclude that "The United States had already made itself co-responsible for Iraqi life, first by imposing the sanctions, second by imposing the no-fly zones, and third by co-existing with the regime." I'm guessing that's not likely a line you'll hear coming from Paul Wolfowitz any time soon. So Hitchens at least suggests that the U.S. is somewhat culpable for the current siuation in Iraq since "in the wasted decade of sanctions-plus-Saddam, a whole paranoid and wretched fundamentalist underclass was created and exploited by the increasingly Islamist propaganda of the Baath Party." Therefore:

There was no way around our adoption of Iraq, as there still is not. It's only a pity that the decision to intervene was left until so many years had been consumed by the locust.

Well, if what you're trying to saying, Hitch, is that we really should've taken care of things in Iraq over a decade ago instead of abandoning the Iraqi people, well, yes. We should have.