Gasp. A liberal that supports the "War on Terror" vis-a-vis the war against Saddam. I can't comment directly on all of his war-related writing, but the Hitchens I know has always been a scathing and sometimes hilarious critic of religiosity. It is because of this that I have ignored the growing fervor over his "conversion" and his falling out with his former comrades.
What I find interesting is the paradox of the right holding up Hitchens as a man who has "seen the light". In this interview, Hitchens says, "I thought the United States should be defended from nihilistic Islamism and they thought it should be criticized for it, and it had brought it on itself. And that's a difference you cannot split."
nihilistic Islamism. Not "Islam"; note the adjective. Hitchens has no love for religion in general, but in his mind, this war has a point. No, he's not worried about Christian fundamentalism and nor am I; at this point in Christian evolution, liberal democracy is sufficient to keep it in check. But nihilistic Islamism stands for the destruction of liberal democracy. As a contributor to Free Inquiry, I assume Hitchens to be a secular humanist. If so, the conclusion that "the United States should be defended from nihilistic Islamism…" is obvious.
As a secular humanist, and a pragmatist, my opinion is falling in line with his. The packaging given to the people over going to war was a lie; no time to quibble. For the administration, the motivations for going to war may have included greed; no matter. Should we have gone to war? "It's certainly safe to say that a can of worms existed." And taking the long-view? "Yes, this is an appointment with history. And it's not one we can evade."