More the sucker I for getting pulled in by his inane sub-header on the Slate front page.

Hitch's modus operandi dovetails precisely with Dubya's: the action remains necessary; only the justifications change (and that right frequently). And like the administration's, Hitch's arguments are so easy to rebut it's a wonder anyone takes them seriously in the first place.

Point 1: If Zarqawi hadn't Americans to target, easily, in Iraq, why would he have gone there? Perhaps Hitch wishes to argue that he would have gone to another Middle Eastern nation to make trouble. Had Zarqawi caused some kind of uproar in another Mid-East nation it most likely would have helped our cause on the international stage, which was, on the whole, deeply sympathetic to America's situation before the decision to invade Iraq - even in the Middle East.

Point 2: Is Hitch really arguing that because the force in Afghanistan is multi-national, more American troops wouldn't help secure the country?! Why does anyone still read this guy? Slate, it's time to fire this joker. This point REFUTES ITSELF.

Point 3: Does Hitch imagine that the same techniques couldn't have been learned in Afghanistan, had we even been subjected to the same shocking loss of life there that we've suffered in Iraq? Perhaps Iraq has some magical property that allows the US to learn counter-insurgency tactics. Look for Hitch to make this argument as a rationale for the invasion in an upcoming piece. I won't be joining you all, though; this guy has exactly zero to add to the discussion and I don't really care to waste any more time on him. Unless....

Christopher Hitchens! I accuse you of being a blowhard and a sophist! I challenge you to try to refine your argument, in this thread, so as to make it serious enough to warrant further discussion!