Logical Deficiencies in Republican Arguments Against US Pullout from Iraq
IMHO as of now:
A democratic congressman has apparently obtained a letter sent by two republican congressmen to their fellow-republicans, which attempts to coach the fellow-republicans in the art of debating the "radical Islam" issue with democrats ( http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/13/leaked_gop_letter_reveals_why_gop_doesnt_want_to_debate_escalation ).
This letter, implies that the troop surge in Iraq is but a minor part of the general war on global "radical Islam" and therefore should not be discussed whereas instead the general global war on "radical Islam" of which the Iraq situation is merely a subcategory, should be discussed.
I do not understand the logic of this. Their general global war on "radical Islam" is ultimately the sum of many activities such as their war in Iraq and their troop surge in Iraq. If they neglect to study the wisdom of these "minor" activities which put together form their overall global war on "radical Islam", how can they expect to sponsor a competent struggle against or intelligent co-existence with global "radical Islam"?
The letter merely asserts, that efforts to contain global "radical Islam", will be damaged by a pull-out from Iraq, and will be advanced by staying in Iraq. Such assertion is not argument or evidence. Where is the proof that the war in Iraq and the troop surge in Iraq, are better alternatives in terms of the cost-benefit outcome (taking into account probabilities of various outcomes) than other possible alternatives, if the goal is to contain global "radical Islam"?
The reality is that a pull-out from Iraq could damage efforts to contain global "radical Islam", but that such would nevertheless be more than compensated for by a re-allocation of resources spent on Iraq, to other ways of dealing with "radical Islam".
These republicans themselves declare that the war in Iraq is but a small part of the general effort to contain "radical Islam"; yet at the same time they seem blind to the possibility that resources could be shifted from the war in Iraq to other approaches to dealing with the problem of "radical Islam"--as if pulling out of Iraq would not free up resources for use in other approaches to the problem.
In similar fashion such republicans in their fanatical free-trade-ism argue as if money spent on goods resources and services simply dissappeared when it was spent, whereas the reality is of course that those who sell the goods resources and services proceed to do things with the money that they obtain for the goods resources and services they sell.
The letter states, "If we do not win in Iraq then where will we win". Iraq is the country the US has devoted the most energy to so far...this statement simply assumes that the way to deal with "radical Islam", is to rush into Islamic countries and fight and "win". Where is the proof that such is the best expenditure of resources when it comes to dealing with the "radical Islam" problem?
There are many areas of endeavour with regards to the "radical Islam" problem in which one would expect greater chances of success (a "win") than in a war in Iraq: exerting a moderating impact on immigrant Muslim populations; reducing the amount of wealth and money leaking away from non-Muslim states to Muslim states through trade; strengthening border security; strengthening detection of source of attack capability; doing good to not just Christians but to all, as said St Paul; building peace and understanding between the Muslim and the non-Muslim world; helping the Muslim and non-muslim worlds to rise higher in wisdom and spirit; devoting resources to activities which strengthen the non-Muslim world without harming the Muslim world; strengthening internal security; altering immigration policies; guarding non-Muslim leaders; funding non-Muslim movements that stand up for non_muslim interests.
The letter asserts that Americans do not understand the situation. To simply assert that people do not understand the situation, and to combine such with the simple assertion that the un-understood opinion reflects actual reality, is not argument or evidence...we all have encountered people who expect us to submit to them, who simply declare that we do not understand things and that such and such is the way things are--and we have all been disgusted with such persons, because they are like people saying, just give up on understanding the matter and trust me, because I am smarter than you.
But where is the evidence that these republicans are either smart or trustworthy?
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
A democratic congressman has apparently obtained a letter sent by two republican congressmen to their fellow-republicans, which attempts to coach the fellow-republicans in the art of debating the "radical Islam" issue with democrats ( http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/13/leaked_gop_letter_reveals_why_gop_doesnt_want_to_debate_escalation ).
This letter, implies that the troop surge in Iraq is but a minor part of the general war on global "radical Islam" and therefore should not be discussed whereas instead the general global war on "radical Islam" of which the Iraq situation is merely a subcategory, should be discussed.
I do not understand the logic of this. Their general global war on "radical Islam" is ultimately the sum of many activities such as their war in Iraq and their troop surge in Iraq. If they neglect to study the wisdom of these "minor" activities which put together form their overall global war on "radical Islam", how can they expect to sponsor a competent struggle against or intelligent co-existence with global "radical Islam"?
The letter merely asserts, that efforts to contain global "radical Islam", will be damaged by a pull-out from Iraq, and will be advanced by staying in Iraq. Such assertion is not argument or evidence. Where is the proof that the war in Iraq and the troop surge in Iraq, are better alternatives in terms of the cost-benefit outcome (taking into account probabilities of various outcomes) than other possible alternatives, if the goal is to contain global "radical Islam"?
The reality is that a pull-out from Iraq could damage efforts to contain global "radical Islam", but that such would nevertheless be more than compensated for by a re-allocation of resources spent on Iraq, to other ways of dealing with "radical Islam".
These republicans themselves declare that the war in Iraq is but a small part of the general effort to contain "radical Islam"; yet at the same time they seem blind to the possibility that resources could be shifted from the war in Iraq to other approaches to dealing with the problem of "radical Islam"--as if pulling out of Iraq would not free up resources for use in other approaches to the problem.
In similar fashion such republicans in their fanatical free-trade-ism argue as if money spent on goods resources and services simply dissappeared when it was spent, whereas the reality is of course that those who sell the goods resources and services proceed to do things with the money that they obtain for the goods resources and services they sell.
The letter states, "If we do not win in Iraq then where will we win". Iraq is the country the US has devoted the most energy to so far...this statement simply assumes that the way to deal with "radical Islam", is to rush into Islamic countries and fight and "win". Where is the proof that such is the best expenditure of resources when it comes to dealing with the "radical Islam" problem?
There are many areas of endeavour with regards to the "radical Islam" problem in which one would expect greater chances of success (a "win") than in a war in Iraq: exerting a moderating impact on immigrant Muslim populations; reducing the amount of wealth and money leaking away from non-Muslim states to Muslim states through trade; strengthening border security; strengthening detection of source of attack capability; doing good to not just Christians but to all, as said St Paul; building peace and understanding between the Muslim and the non-Muslim world; helping the Muslim and non-muslim worlds to rise higher in wisdom and spirit; devoting resources to activities which strengthen the non-Muslim world without harming the Muslim world; strengthening internal security; altering immigration policies; guarding non-Muslim leaders; funding non-Muslim movements that stand up for non_muslim interests.
The letter asserts that Americans do not understand the situation. To simply assert that people do not understand the situation, and to combine such with the simple assertion that the un-understood opinion reflects actual reality, is not argument or evidence...we all have encountered people who expect us to submit to them, who simply declare that we do not understand things and that such and such is the way things are--and we have all been disgusted with such persons, because they are like people saying, just give up on understanding the matter and trust me, because I am smarter than you.
But where is the evidence that these republicans are either smart or trustworthy?
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 9:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home