Functional Disjunction: Do You “Believe” What You “Know” About Iraq?

Recently I conducted an interesting exercise in my classes. I passed out a self-check quiz regarding the war in Iraq. I had compiled an imposing list of statements commonly made by President Bush or his spokespersons about the war, defending the Administration’s policies there. I asked the students to mark as “true” those statements with which they agreed and to leave the rest blank.

Then on a separate check sheet I listed a number of statements about the details of the situation in Iraq, and asked them to mark the ones that they considered valid or “true.” I requested they fill in the two sheets separately, and did not tell them that the statements on the second sheet had to be true in order to validate Bush’s policies. In other words, the second sheet listed, in matching numerical order, the assumptions underlying the Administration’s proclaimed positions.

After they finished marking their sheets, I told them to put the two sheets side by side, with the item numbers lining up. To be consistent, their marks on the two sheets should match--the Administration statements and the underlying assumptions should agree. If they marked the Administration statements as true, they should have marked the matching assumption as true. If they felt the Administration’s position was wrong, they should have recognized the assumption as invalid. If their statement and their assumption marks did not match, it would be a sign of confused thinking, or maybe the absence of thought. This was not a test of whether the President’s policies are “right,” but only if one’s opinions about Iraq follow from the assumptions that one considers valid. Without mental consistency, you will be hard pressed to back up what you believe.

The results:
In reality, a strong case could be made that all of the “assumptions” are wrong, or at the very least, questionable. If a Bush critic marked any of the assumptions as valid, his or her rational processes needed examining. And by the same token, any instance where a Bush supporter recognized an assumption to be wrong, a mismatch popped up on his sheet, revealing the confused thinking. For both sides, a mismatch exposed a disjunction between belief and knowledge.

About 1/3 of my students evidenced confusion--some supporters and some critics. Most of the Administration critics turned in blank sheets, which meant their positions and assumptions matched. But the inconsistent thinkers were predominantly Bush supporters. It looks as if our CAO (Chief Articulating Officer) has more explaining to do.

In case you want to glance over the “statement/assumption” list, it follows here in paired form. If you are a logical thinker, the statements with their assumptions should in most cases either make total sense, or total nonsense. How does it look to you? There might be room for discussion between the extremes, but the degree to which the matching is optimal is possibly a measure of the clarity of your thought processes, regardless of which side of the controversy you have chosen to champion. Check yourself.


Bush Administration’s Military Policy In Iraq

1. Our war machine (troops, fire power, technology) can win the war.
Assumption: All we need is more soldiers, more money, and more time.

2. Pulling out our troops will send Iraq into political chaos and precipitate civil war.
Assumption: There is neither chaos nor civil war now present in Iraq

3. While our troops have been present in Iraq, progress toward a stable, democratic self-government has been made
Assumption: The Iraqi leaders have shown both the skill and willingness to resolve their
disagreements.

4. Stabilization of the Iraqi government depends on the presence of our troops.
Assumption: The only obstacle to a smooth and stable government is terrorist violence.

5. Pulling our troops out prematurely will cancel all we have accomplished.
Assumprion: We have accomplished a lot in weakening Al Qaeda, training Iraqi soldiers

to take our place, and persuading the Iraqi politicians to cooperate.
Assumption: Important strides have been made in repairing the Iraqi infrastructure.

6. We did Iraq a huge favor by toppling Saddam Hussein..
Assumption: The Iraqi people appreciate the improved situation they now experience and

want us to stay and continue our good work.

7. Things over-all will get worse if we leave.
Assumption: Things aren’t so bad now.

8. Our withdrawal will increase Iran’s involvement and enhance its influence in the
Middle East.
Assumption: Our presence in Iraq has effectively restrained Iran’s involvement.
Assumption: Our military success in Iraq is the only way to keep Iran under wraps.

9. Someone has to do something, so we should be the one.
Assumption: Other countries are backing us in our role as “intervener.”
Assumption: A country always furthers its best interests by going it alone.
Assumption: We are respected internationally for our principled stands.

10. The threat to America is primarily and strategically in Iraq; we have to respond.
Assumption: Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack on New York.

11. If we don’t fight Al Quaeda in Iraq, we will fight them here.
Assumption: It is easier, safer, less expensive and more effective to fight them on

someone’s else’s terrain.
Assumption: We lose fewer lives when we take the fight to them.

12. If we pull out the insurgents will take over.
Assumption: Insurgency has yet to gain an upper-hand. Civil violence is waning.

13. By our efforts freedom has taken root in Iraq.
Assumption: Enduring freedom comes to a nation as a gift.

14. Leaving will make us look weak and uncertain.
Assumption: Our 4 & 1/2 years of war in Iraq has established our superior power and

impressed the world with our effective leadership.

15 Leaving would destabilize the government of Iraq.
Assumption: The Iraq government is not already in trouble.

16. Stick with the plan--US military engagement. We don’t have another.
Assumption: Nobody but the President has offered other ideas--not any Army generals,

not any members of Congress, not any presidential candidates, not any journalists, authors

or commentators.

Doug Good