Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFallacies and War: Misleading a Nervous America to the Wrong Conclusion
Originally published by CommonDreams.org on Friday, February 28, 2003
I love America. I feel extremely lucky to have been born in this country into a middle-class family. I get very angry when my America gets abused and my way of life challenged by the actions of the politicians running the government. For this week's column, I'm turning serious to discuss some of the empty arguments given by the current administration as a pretext for war.
When facts are not available or convenient, there are many tricks one can use to present an argument. Here are a few examples of tactics the current administration is using to convince you and the world that invading Iraq is necessary.
One of the favorite methods of the current administration is a false dilemma. This is when only two choices are given when, in reality, there are more options. Right after 9/11 you heard, "You are either with us or against us," in the fight against terrorism. Actually, countries can be both against terrorism and not an ally of the U.S. More recently, many countries are showing that they are both against a pre-emptive war and against the current Iraqi regime.
We are also hearing we must attack Iraq or Saddam will develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and threaten the world if we do nothing. Other options of monitoring with inspectors and containment are just flatly discounted. Are we to believe that Saddam could develop nuclear weapons while the world has him under a microscope?
Just recently, the President suggested the U.N. should vote for war or face irrelevance. The U.N. will not disappear just because most of its member countries disagree with George W. Bush. If debate and disagreement spelled the end of deliberative bodies, the U.S. Congress would have vanished long ago.
Another arguing device is the argument from ignorance. This involves claiming that what hasn't been disproven must be true. We hear Iraq hasn't shown that they do not have WMD, therefore they do. The real burden of proof is on the party making the claim. The U.S. and/or U.N. must prove that Iraq has WMD. It is impossible for Iraq to prove that they don't.
An argument portraying a series of increasingly bad events is called a slippery slope. This is used effectively by gun-control opponents who suggest handgun registration will eventually lead to government confiscation of all guns. On Iraq, we hear how Saddam will develop WMDs and give them to terrorists who will then use them on America. While this is one possible chain of events, it hardly justifies a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation.
The response to this has been that the proof or smoking gun can't be in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city. This is more slippery slope with a false dilemma and a whole lot of fear-mongering. There are effective ways to find proof of WMD and destroy them before it comes to such a dramatic conclusion.
Criticizing a person or group instead of an issue is called an ad hominem attack. The current talk about France by many Americans is a perfect example. It is not only childish, it distracts from the real issues. France is not obligated to go along with every American idea because we saved them from Nazi Germany 60 years ago.
President Bush also often calls Saddam Hussein a murderous, evil man who can't be trusted. While true, this name-calling does not prove that Saddam has any ability to threaten the world.
Another common device we are seeing is a fallacy of exclusion. Colin Powell and President Bush have both talked about aluminum tubes being used for uranium enrichment for use in nuclear weapons. They always fail to mention that according to U.N. nuclear inspectors the tubes were actually conventional rocket artillery casings. They also mention Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980's. They again leave out that we supported Iraq at that time in their war against Iran, and basically ignored the use of WMDs at that time.
Colin Powell also claimed the most recent audio tape from Osama bin Laden showed a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. They have been suggesting this since 9/11, but still haven't provided any real evidence. Osama said that he stands with the Iraqi people while referring to Hussein as an "infidel." Also, as most people know, the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11 were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
Arguing a claim is true based on someone being an expert on the subject is known as an appeal to authority. In our case, the experts are defectors from Iraq. Powell claimed defectors reported there were 18 mobile biological weapons labs cruising around Iraq. First, these defector's stories are suspect due to their obvious dislike of Iraq. I'm sure they would be happy to tell the U.S. what they wanted to hear if it hastened the destruction of the Iraqi regime and they could return to their homeland. More to the point, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said his men had examined some of the trucks and found them to be food-testing labs.
So, with out any real evidence, what's left? Saddam is bad?
Is that all? I realize war has become relatively easy for the US, especially when we are facing such a remarkably weak adversary and few American lives are at risk. But why war, and why now when there are still peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein?
Why is the Bush Administration using these deceptive techniques to rush us into a war with Iraq?
Is there any solid evidence that Iraq still processes weapons of mass destruction and has ties with terrorist groups? A few audio tapes and fuzzy satellite photos are not proof. All we hear is the same anecdotal evidence repeated over and over again.
President Bush has said that if Saddam and his generals "take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals." Isn't the United States about to take innocent life and destroy infrastructure?
There was immense goodwill for America after 9/11, with even a French newspaper proclaiming "We are all Americans!" Now America is viewed with suspicion, fear and anger. When millions of the world's citizens protest American aggression, why does our president just shrug?
Despite what you have been told by this administration, the ends do not justify the means. While the goals of disarming Saddam and helping Iraq become free and democratic are certainly good, war is not the right way to make that happen.
There is no imminent threat and no need to throw away international law and diplomacy. We should not risk the lives of our troops and kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi men, women and children because of one man.
Sometimes war is a horrible necessity.
This is not one of those times.
© 2003 Copyright Calkins Media, Inc
18 Comments so far
Show AllPrescient.
WTF -- So true, it is the only way that things can be changed for the benefit of humankind, by one person at a time choosing to do so.
Thank you, and Namaste (BTW, your screen name's apparent attribute/invocation is far incongruent to your meaning - is there an explanation -- you and D n G both).
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK
Paul Bramscher wrote: ..curl up and die
Thats the fallacy of your paradigm, that when faced with threat, the only option to fighting back is to die. A very primitive fight or flight response.
There are higher values and approaches based on non-violence. Seize the moral initiative. Expose the injustice of the system. Shame the oppressor into repentance. Deprive the oppressor of a situation where force is effective. Such approaches have long been demonstrated to be effective by Eastern practitioners. It works.
No. If you're mugged, facing a burglar, rapist, etc. it is perfectly within your ethical right to give them hellfire in return.
No curl up and die, martyrdom or vague WTF's mentality. The issue here is state-sponsored aggressive violence vs. individual right to genuine and bona fide self-defense.
@shakker
I'm convinced that those most terrified of life are those who need guns. These are the people who lack confidence in themselves and need to compensate.
I still don't get the fear thing. A few more planes into buildings and they would have been grounded due to lack of passengers. The odds of any one particular person being killed by a non- government terrorist is almost nil.
I was sad for 911 victims and families, but afraid no.
Maybe the 3 times I have almost died and 1 time technically dead. Ruptured appendix as child, tonsil abscess when 42, heart valve failure due to defect only discovered because of a lucky case of pneumonia. Heart stopped for heart valve replacement later restarted on cue. They don't always.
I have had close calls in cars, scary near drowning, and almost shot by a careless hunter.
I am a fairly careful person on the normal stuff- thats what kills you. Are any of the people scared of terrorists, smokers?
Bumper sticker: "HONK if you want another 100 years in lraq"
Prevoice is correct in saying that all those people who protested this war before it started seven years ago are still against it. Now those against this illegal war and occupation have grown to a majority of Americans---but those in Congress of both parties are still funding the continuation of the war. Why is that? Aren't we a Democracy? Those officials represent us!
WRONG! The whole of our Congress, both houses and both parties have sold their souls. They work for their paymasters, the corporations who are making enormous profits on the war.
A vote for either a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for more of the same. Vote for an Independent, or the candidates of a 'minor' (not bought and paid for) party....or just stay home instead of giving some validity to the charade.
Five years later and five years wiser, here we are again.....
False dilemma: Either we stay and fight them over there, or they will follow us home and we'll just have to fight them over here.
Argument from ignorance: Because Iran can't prove their nuclear research program is solely for nonmilitary purposes, clearly they must be hiding a secret nuclear weapons project.
Slippery slope: If the US withdraws from Iraq, the Maliki regime will fall, a multi-faction sectarian civil war will break out, and the central government will disintigrate, resulting in chaos from which Al Quaeda will evetually emerge as the dominant force in a new terror-sponsoring Iraqi state.
Ad hominem: Only kooks like Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich believe it's simply none of the business of the United States government what sort of post-Saddam regime the Iraqi people decide they want to have.
Fallacy of exclusion: It's really the foreign terrorists from Al Quaeda in Iraq that are responsible for stirring up the Sunni-Shiite violence, the reprisal killings, and the ethnic cleansing.
Appeal to authority: Don't any of you armchair micromanagers in Washington dare even pretend that you know more about what's really going on in Iraq, and what we should be doing over there, than General Petraeus and our other experienced commanders in the field who have been delegated the authority to make those decisions.
Five years ago, I stood with dozens (and later, hundreds) of other picketers at the local courthouse square opposing the imminent invasion of Iraq. When the shock and awe began in March, a local radio station helped organize counter-pickets, who showed up for several days (in roughly equal number to the peace protestors) to wave pro-war signs in a counter-demonstration on the other side of the street. Passing motorists honked their horns in encouragement, or flipped off one side of the street or the other. First Amendment in action big time.
Five years ago, George Bush's popularity and public support for the US invasion of Iraq was up near 70%, by the time of the Mission Accomplished photo-op. Right wingers were demanding apologies from the pundits who had cautioned against invading and getting US troops enmeshed in an endless urban guerilla war. Within the DC inner circle, the neo-cons smirked and joked that Baghdad was for boys, and real men wanted to march on to Tehran.
I am certain there is not a single person who stood on the peace protest side of the square in February of 2003 who today regrets that choice. I am equally certain that well over half of the pro-war counter-demonstrators who came out to whoop and holler back then have reflected and reconsidered, and will no longer oppose a principled decision to bring the troops home now.
Can Barack Obama hold together the original antiwar base, along with the swing voting persuadables who have come to sense, deep in their hearts, that they made a mistake in initially joining George Bush's grand imperial parade? I suspect a lot will depend on how the Democratic ticket responds to John McCain's updated version of the fallacious argumentative devices that Mr. Koehler's 2003 article describes.
Particularly, keep a sharp eye out for variations on the Pottery Barn Rule, ie., we broke it, so we own it.
The theme of the Pottery Barn device builds from the premise that what's past is past, so there's no point rehashing who was right, who was wrong, or how things should have been done better back then. Yes, mistakes were made. But we must turn our eyes to the future, and the United States dares not make matters worse.
If we withdraw US troops, a bigger bloodbath will undoubtedly occur within the power vaccuum that our withdrawal creates. America will be responsible for this humanitarian crisis, and the Commander-in-Chief will have no choice but to reverse course, and send US troops right back in. All that blood - every bit of it - will be on the hands of those who naively thought they were going to bring about peace by stopping the war.
Therefore, all in all, it's just best to hunker down and stay the course, even if it takes a hundred years, since General Petraeus has set us on a new, righteous military counterinsurgency course in Iraq, as he shall now explain in more detail.......
Bill from Saginaw
Demerara - Seems like you are confusing love of ones country with love of ones government. There's quite a big difference.
provoice - You are right on. After all this time, it seems the same types of fallacies are still being used to steal our freedom and liberty.
Will we ever learn?
"Sometimes war is a horrible necessity.
This is not one of those times."
Hmmmmm.....that must be why the "coalition of the willing" has pretty much disappeared from military engagement in the global "war on terror".
Have we forgotten what we did to the
native Indians, whose country we invaded
back in 1492?
Thanks, provoice...you said it all and said it well.
It's worth repeating:
Military activity alone will not solve this terrorist problem for Turkey….They need to deal with some of the issues and complaints that some of the Kurds have and move this in a non-military direction in order to get a long term solution.
- US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Feb 27 2008.
Oh to have had such wisdom 6 years ago.
Assuming this article was re-published for the purpose of demonstrating how correct you were at the time, I would like to point out that MANY of us were right at the time, especially in regard to the non-existant "WMD".
Unfortunately, our wisdom did not prevent a cowed Congress from supporting practically everything Bush & Company demanded of them... nor has it prevented Bush from issuing over 700 "signing statements" to explain how his Eminence translates the intent or purpose of that bill.
So now, after seven years of a totally incompetent administration, backed by a totally impotent Congress and supported by a plethora of fawning "news" people, religious nuts and right-wing commentators... America is becoming fed up with the lies, distortions and outright criminal behavior of the neo-con revolution.
Sadly, in that same seven years, the value of the U.S. dollar has dropped like a rock in the world of international finance, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, our economy has been flooded by an invasion of cheap illegal labor, our credit, energy, medical and insurance systems have been virtually destroyed by money-grubbing pirates who were permitted to write their own regulations, and virtually no one has been prosecuted except for a few bottom-level scapegoats.
Shakespeare said "Start with the lawyers..." I say, "Start with Fox News... Limbaugh, Coulter, Kristol, Hannity, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, Podhoretz and all the other slime that helped sell us these snake oil doctors."
Why was this article republished? The author's love of America did not include the illegal wars in Vietnam, Grenada nor Panama. What about the brutal dictatorships that we helped support in Chile & Panama and elsewhere or the thousands killed in El salvador, Nicarauga and Guatemala...I can go on about illegal wars and illegal military activity that the US government and therefore, the citizens, we the people...are ultimately reponsible for...Is this the America he also loves or did bad stuff only begin with George W. Bush?
We can ertainly conclude after 5 years that the Iraq 'War' is a continuation of American foreign policy and unless folks like Dave Koehler can understand our history and realise that it will take a 360 degrees turn in our militaruzed foreign policy...it will be business as usual...even with Democrats at the helm.
it's obvious we are not going to be impeaching this administration anytime soon. However, the moment this administration is out of office each of the key players should be arrested as private citizens for murder.
"President Bush also often calls Saddam Hussein a murderous, evil man who can't be trusted."
After watching Bush's new conference today, he said something like "posing next to tyrants only sends the wrong message." Maybe someone can put up that photo again of Rumsfeld posing and shaking hands with Saddam after he sold him some weapons.