Each time Hitchens writes about the Iraq War it seems that he tops his last effort in the construction of strawmen and meretricious argument. Just when it seems impossible to keep this trend alive, Hitchens writes another article filled with such Brobdingnagian fallacies of logic that one can only be filled with awe.

Begin with the title: "Isolationism Isn't the Answer." Other than Ron Paul, I don't know who is advocating isolationism. Hitchens is creating a line by connecting two unrelated points (Iraq and Afghanistan) to then extrapolate to isolationism. However, he's the only one making this argument. Equating Iraq to Afghanistan is purely Hitchens' fantasy.

Hitchens writes: "It's practically an article of faith among liberals that only the folly of the intervention made Iraq into a magnet and a training or recruiting ground for our foes. " This is a calumny directed at liberals. For instance, from the Washington Post of January 14, 2005 at <link>: " 'Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists,' according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank. 'Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," ' said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats." This was not an isolated opinion, but probably represents what most experts believe. However, this argument is itself a dodge, and not related to Hitchens' thesis about isolationism. To believe that Iraq is a magnet and training ground for Islamic fanatics is not the same as believing that we are the cause of Islamic fanaticism.

Hitchens writes: "It is idle to think that 'we' created this gruesome phenomenon (throat-cutting Islamic fanatics) and idler still to imagine that there is any possibility of our compromising with it." Again, this is a strawman. Most people don't believe that the West created Islamic fanaticism, although it is not irrational to believe that we fanned the flames of that fanaticism.

Certainly we should be prepared to fight Islamic fanaticism in an intelligent manner where it makes sense to do so. Invading and occupying Iraq was not helpful in fighting this fanaticism, despite Hitchens' misleading protestations.

Exactly right, tychobrahe.

Hitchens persistently employs fallacious logic.

I myself have remarked in the past that Hitchens is a pseudo-intellectual (as evidenced by his crass lines of argument, inter alia).

One wonders if: he does this deliberately, for the sake of defending his position - in which case the depths of his dishonesty really do qualify him for the famous "sack of shit" label he acquired;

or: he really is oblivious to the logical (and other) fallacies of his arguments - in which case he is not fit for printing in a magazine presumably intended for intelligent readers.