He seems to always argue about first principles, usually definitions, and then he takes the argument to his conclusion. This is a time tested method of disputation which is effective against the unwary because once he succeeds in defining the ground rules the victim thinks he is coming to Soros' conclusion as his own idea.
Let's look at the basic idea that the war on terrorism is a "metaphor" which gets us into trouble. Soros is expressing a reasonably popular view here but it is one that ignores the fact that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to label this war a war against Muslim extremism is to risk turning 1/5 of the planet against us. This is precisely the 1/5 that we need ultimately to win this war because it is precisely the Muslim world that has the understanding of the traditions, the beliefs, and is in possession of the intelligence which are all essential to understanding and winning the war against Islamic Jihad. Bush was quite right in avoiding direct references to wars directed against the Muslim faith.
Let us look at Soros' syllogism. The metaphor of a war on terror is false and that leads us into at least four errors principal among them is that it leads us to seek a military solution to a political problem. Once Soros gets us to this point, he can unload a whole carload of left-wing priorities on to us like universal human rights and the world energy crisis. Soros' strategy is to change the definitional underpinnings of the arguments and then confine the solutions, both procedural and substantive, to those the left likes.
But Soros does make one frightening claim which ought to be considered even though it is largely unsupported in his argument: "Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won."
Soros is saying that we cannot win this as a war on terror, indeed we cannot win it as a war at all, therefore let's abandon the concept of waging a war and take up the tools of the left. His next step, no doubt, which we will see in a subsequent article, will be to turn toward one world government.
At least once on these threads we ought to leave off the name calling and actually address the merits of an argument. Soros might be right even though he is Soros -but I doubt it.
