Indefensible

If one were to desire proof that Christopher Hitchens is tired of being a tool for right-wing warmongerers, don't read his most recent column in Slate, where he argues that the use of the term "Islamofascism" is completely appropriate and legitimate. Hitchens goes to great lengths to defend the term, picking the most broad and sweeping elements of both fascism and Islam (and to muddle and undermine his own argument, Islamic countries) so as to make at best a general correlation between the two. But of course it's the tone of Hitchens column that is completely off. He makes an effort to sound reasonable in his argument, which quite frankly, is bizarre in this context. Hitchens seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the term "Islamofascism" is a term propogated by right-wing warmongerers who see no difference between Islam and Islamic extremists, who condemn entire cultures and an entire religion and seem incapable of realizing the vast diversity of Islam, and who do not possess in their entire brains the ability to reason or argue that Hitchens possesses in one finger (though the capacity for self-delusion between the two is equal.) Hitchens proves yet again that he is perfectly willing to lie down with dogs if it somehow allows him to be the contrarian in the argument over the Grand War of Civilizations, and the only thing that comes out of it is yet another infuriating and unconvincing argument for war.