Insult-Proof Your Intelligence: Rhetorical Nonsense on Iraq
Insult-proof Your Intelligence: Rhetorical Nonsense on Iraq
Regarding the recent Congressional bill for further funding of the war with its stipulation that a time-table be followed to bring the troops home, the President argues that it gives the enemy a critical advantage. Knowing that we will be winding down our effort sends them the wrong message. It tells them we have accepted eventual failure and all they have to do is wait us out and they have the victory. Strategically you don’t tell your opponent what your plans are, particularly if they are wrapped in the psychology of defeat.
As an argument this sounds good. How could the Congress think they know better than the generals how to fight a war?
However, this argument is fatally flawed. As with any bad logic, it makes an assumption, actually two assumptions, that are embarrassingly brainless.
First, the President wants us to believe that we possess a winning advantage now, an advantage that the insurgents are aware of. In reality, we hold no such advantage, and the insurgents know they have us against the ropes. The American public’s disaffection with the war is not the reason for our troubles; it is the result. The troubles came first. News of the American public’s disapproval is gravy to the insurgents who gained their advantage “in the field” without the help of any psychological deficit in the American public mind. The suggestion that talk of withdrawal gives comfort to the enemy is the argument of a poser.
Second, if we are to believe the President, he wants to bring the troops home. He just doesn’t want the insurgents to know when. Well, the President either decides to end the war and withdraw troops or he doesn’t. (Or, if we follow the Constitution, Congress would play its assigned role and decide for him.) There is no in between withdrawing or not withdrawing.. Without a time-table, we can assume we are not pre-planning a withdrawal. The President is trying to have it both ways, but it can’t be done. To be for an eventual withdrawal ahead of time is flatulence (empty, windy speech--literally, passing gas). Withdrawal is what a commander does after victory. Even without a timetable, the very first soldier that is “brought home” would be the announcement Bush does not want to send. For the President even to discuss our troubles in Iraq is a prelude to such an announcement. But the reality is the insurgents don’t need any announcement. Bush has already shown his cards. His “surge strategy” has its own built-in timetable. He has said, if it isn’t working by six months he will consider withdrawal. He portrays this as a way to avoid premature withdrawal. The only thing it gains us is that instead of allowing the insurgents to sit back and wait out a specified time-table, they only have to keep doing for another six months (five now) what they have been so effectively doing until now. They don’t need our generals to admit that the U.S. is not winning. They already know it.
So, with the first flaw in logic, the President’s argument assumes we have the edge, which we don’t. To believe in this fiction also requires us to think the insurgents agree. This double state of denial is a bad basis for an argument.
Then, with the second flaw in logic, to believe that we could catch the insurgents by surprise with a “withdrawal in the offing” that doesn’t have a prescribed time-table is to persuade ourselves that a withdrawal decision would be a precipitating factor when it is not. “Withdrawal” is a non-issue. If you are winning, of course you look forward to withdrawal. If you are losing and are perceived as looking forward to withdrawal, the ascendant enemy already has the message. You win or you lose; withdrawal is an after effect. A commander who promises withdrawal while initiating a strategy he describes as a last chance effort does not fool anyone except those who depend on wishful thinking, which, again, does not serve as sound logic.
If you are going to borrow the emperor’s clothes (his argument), you best look in the mirror before stepping outside.
Doug Good
Regarding the recent Congressional bill for further funding of the war with its stipulation that a time-table be followed to bring the troops home, the President argues that it gives the enemy a critical advantage. Knowing that we will be winding down our effort sends them the wrong message. It tells them we have accepted eventual failure and all they have to do is wait us out and they have the victory. Strategically you don’t tell your opponent what your plans are, particularly if they are wrapped in the psychology of defeat.
As an argument this sounds good. How could the Congress think they know better than the generals how to fight a war?
However, this argument is fatally flawed. As with any bad logic, it makes an assumption, actually two assumptions, that are embarrassingly brainless.
First, the President wants us to believe that we possess a winning advantage now, an advantage that the insurgents are aware of. In reality, we hold no such advantage, and the insurgents know they have us against the ropes. The American public’s disaffection with the war is not the reason for our troubles; it is the result. The troubles came first. News of the American public’s disapproval is gravy to the insurgents who gained their advantage “in the field” without the help of any psychological deficit in the American public mind. The suggestion that talk of withdrawal gives comfort to the enemy is the argument of a poser.
Second, if we are to believe the President, he wants to bring the troops home. He just doesn’t want the insurgents to know when. Well, the President either decides to end the war and withdraw troops or he doesn’t. (Or, if we follow the Constitution, Congress would play its assigned role and decide for him.) There is no in between withdrawing or not withdrawing.. Without a time-table, we can assume we are not pre-planning a withdrawal. The President is trying to have it both ways, but it can’t be done. To be for an eventual withdrawal ahead of time is flatulence (empty, windy speech--literally, passing gas). Withdrawal is what a commander does after victory. Even without a timetable, the very first soldier that is “brought home” would be the announcement Bush does not want to send. For the President even to discuss our troubles in Iraq is a prelude to such an announcement. But the reality is the insurgents don’t need any announcement. Bush has already shown his cards. His “surge strategy” has its own built-in timetable. He has said, if it isn’t working by six months he will consider withdrawal. He portrays this as a way to avoid premature withdrawal. The only thing it gains us is that instead of allowing the insurgents to sit back and wait out a specified time-table, they only have to keep doing for another six months (five now) what they have been so effectively doing until now. They don’t need our generals to admit that the U.S. is not winning. They already know it.
So, with the first flaw in logic, the President’s argument assumes we have the edge, which we don’t. To believe in this fiction also requires us to think the insurgents agree. This double state of denial is a bad basis for an argument.
Then, with the second flaw in logic, to believe that we could catch the insurgents by surprise with a “withdrawal in the offing” that doesn’t have a prescribed time-table is to persuade ourselves that a withdrawal decision would be a precipitating factor when it is not. “Withdrawal” is a non-issue. If you are winning, of course you look forward to withdrawal. If you are losing and are perceived as looking forward to withdrawal, the ascendant enemy already has the message. You win or you lose; withdrawal is an after effect. A commander who promises withdrawal while initiating a strategy he describes as a last chance effort does not fool anyone except those who depend on wishful thinking, which, again, does not serve as sound logic.
If you are going to borrow the emperor’s clothes (his argument), you best look in the mirror before stepping outside.
Doug Good
Labels: Iraq war, Surge Strategy, Troop Withdrawal
posted by Doug at
8:57 PM
1 Comments:
Well, Doug, I think you are right that everyone prevaricates upon occasion...but hopefully as we grow older we do it less and for the right reason. And that is for me the real question. What is the right reason. The line of rationality I follow leads me to the conclusion the only right reason for telling the truth is out of gratitude (not fear, in spite of the Old Testament's fondness for fearing God so you will do right). When I am tempted to lie in any way, whether it is verbally or perhaps non-verbally by going over the speed limit and "justifying" it, I sometimes remember to be grateful for something or someone and maybe even for life itself, and gain much.
Happy Trails,
Jon
By
Happy Hoeing, Jon, At
October 17, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home