Part I--Pro-war One-Liners of Liz Cheney Seem Unaccompanied by Logic, Evidence
January 23 2007 Liz Cheney wrote an article in the Washington Post entitled, "Retreat Isn't an Option". Here I quote passages from her piece--each such passage in boldface and preceded by 'LC'--followed by my comments (IMHO as of now) regarding what she has written. Some of the paragraphs taken from her piece may be slightly paraphrased, as opposed to exact quotations.
LC: America faces an existential threat. This is not...a "situation to be solved." We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
LC here fires off FIVE one-liner sound-bite-style assertions. At no time in her opinion piece does she offer any evidence or argument that I can see to back these assertions. Where is the proof that the terrorists are able to terminate the existence of the US? Where is the proof that the situation cannot be solved using alternatives such as negotiation? Where is the proof that the only way to defend ourselves is by destroying these people whom we fear? Where is the proof that quitting in the Iraq sector, will make the long term struggle against terrorists (frightening persons) "harder, longer, and more deadly"?
LC's five one liners she opens with are mere assertions without evidence or argument to back up the assertions. Are we supposed to take all these one liners as an article of faith?
Mankind is often confronted with the existence of frightening persons. Yet mankind realizes, that assuming that such frightening persons have to be immediately fought to the death somewhere is an unwise approach with regards to the existence of such frightening persons. Mankind realizes that it is a prescription for disaster, to respond to all frightening persons by immediately fighting them to the death.
Furthermore mankind realizes, that even when a military response to the frightening persons is called for, we cannot superstitiously as an article of faith simply assume that we must fight these persons at place X at time Y, simply because some self-proclaimed prophetess has declared, that we must fight said frightening persons at place X at time Y.
Mankind understands from his experience in sports--those who advocate that certain plays be run at certain times, are expected to provide evidence and arguments showing why it would be better to run the play they are advocating as opposed to some other play.)
LC: Quitting helps the terrorists. If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Al-Zarqawi and Zawahiri plan to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East.
Mankind realizes that the reality of modern warfare of the past few centuries, is that wise general X give up certain advantages to the enemy at certain times, because the end result is that wise general X derives advantages that outweigh the advantages that he gave up to the enemy when executing the maneuver.
For example a wise General X might withdraw his troops from one location, thus giving a "win" to the enemy, in a sense "helping the enemy" (surprise for LC: in the process giving a break to his own troops also), so as to move the troops to a new position from which their efforts would be more productive. Likewise a boxer might give a break of a certain kind to his opponent, so as to put his time and energy into some other approach to defeating the opponent.
All successful military leaders, at certain times, restrict the ability of their troops to fight and win...such is unavoidable...equipping one soldier with a piece of equipment means another soldier cannot be equipped with that piece of equipment.
LC keeps referring to the Iraq tragedy as a "war"; but it would be more accurate even from LC's point of view, to decribe it as say a battle in a (hopefully eventually non-violent) war to establish at least peaceful co-existence with Muslim peoples. In a war troops can be cleverly shifted from one battle (the lost battle) to another place, producing advantage as opposed to disadvantage. Mistakenly labeling what is a battle in a war, as the war itself, does not prove that the given mis-labeled battle in the war should be stubbornly fought out.
Again, the statement that quitting in the Iraq war will help the terrorists, is mere assertion not backed by argument, logic, or evidence. It could be quitting in Iraq would "help the terrorists" less than staying in Iraq would. It could be that quitting in Iraq would give the "terrorists" a certain amount of "help" in a certain place and time, but ultimately weaken their cause through the clever re-allocation of "anti-terrorist" resources.
'Al Qaeda' may be planning to use Iraq as a base for a Jihad. This does not reflexively of course prove, that Al Qaeda's plan to use Iraq as a base for Jihad should be disrupted. Sometimes the wise thing to do, is to let the enemy do what he plans to do.
It should be remembered that the war-hawk element in the US created the situation that now prevails featuring a choice between the US having retreated from an expensive, enmity-producing military adventure in Iraq, and the US continuing to fight in Iraq. Had the war-hawk element never gotten its way, the choice would be between alternatives none of which involved the US ever having plunged into violent combat in Iraq.
LC: The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
Mankind realizes that opponents such as the other team or frightening persons or terrorists could be counting on us doing something, but us doing what they are counting on doing could still be wise. The fact the other side is counting on us doing something, does not in and of itself prove, that we should not do that thing. We have often seen in games such as football, a team coming out and doing what the other team expects it to do, and still winning.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
LC: America faces an existential threat. This is not...a "situation to be solved." We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
LC here fires off FIVE one-liner sound-bite-style assertions. At no time in her opinion piece does she offer any evidence or argument that I can see to back these assertions. Where is the proof that the terrorists are able to terminate the existence of the US? Where is the proof that the situation cannot be solved using alternatives such as negotiation? Where is the proof that the only way to defend ourselves is by destroying these people whom we fear? Where is the proof that quitting in the Iraq sector, will make the long term struggle against terrorists (frightening persons) "harder, longer, and more deadly"?
LC's five one liners she opens with are mere assertions without evidence or argument to back up the assertions. Are we supposed to take all these one liners as an article of faith?
Mankind is often confronted with the existence of frightening persons. Yet mankind realizes, that assuming that such frightening persons have to be immediately fought to the death somewhere is an unwise approach with regards to the existence of such frightening persons. Mankind realizes that it is a prescription for disaster, to respond to all frightening persons by immediately fighting them to the death.
Furthermore mankind realizes, that even when a military response to the frightening persons is called for, we cannot superstitiously as an article of faith simply assume that we must fight these persons at place X at time Y, simply because some self-proclaimed prophetess has declared, that we must fight said frightening persons at place X at time Y.
Mankind understands from his experience in sports--those who advocate that certain plays be run at certain times, are expected to provide evidence and arguments showing why it would be better to run the play they are advocating as opposed to some other play.)
LC: Quitting helps the terrorists. If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Al-Zarqawi and Zawahiri plan to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East.
Mankind realizes that the reality of modern warfare of the past few centuries, is that wise general X give up certain advantages to the enemy at certain times, because the end result is that wise general X derives advantages that outweigh the advantages that he gave up to the enemy when executing the maneuver.
For example a wise General X might withdraw his troops from one location, thus giving a "win" to the enemy, in a sense "helping the enemy" (surprise for LC: in the process giving a break to his own troops also), so as to move the troops to a new position from which their efforts would be more productive. Likewise a boxer might give a break of a certain kind to his opponent, so as to put his time and energy into some other approach to defeating the opponent.
All successful military leaders, at certain times, restrict the ability of their troops to fight and win...such is unavoidable...equipping one soldier with a piece of equipment means another soldier cannot be equipped with that piece of equipment.
LC keeps referring to the Iraq tragedy as a "war"; but it would be more accurate even from LC's point of view, to decribe it as say a battle in a (hopefully eventually non-violent) war to establish at least peaceful co-existence with Muslim peoples. In a war troops can be cleverly shifted from one battle (the lost battle) to another place, producing advantage as opposed to disadvantage. Mistakenly labeling what is a battle in a war, as the war itself, does not prove that the given mis-labeled battle in the war should be stubbornly fought out.
Again, the statement that quitting in the Iraq war will help the terrorists, is mere assertion not backed by argument, logic, or evidence. It could be quitting in Iraq would "help the terrorists" less than staying in Iraq would. It could be that quitting in Iraq would give the "terrorists" a certain amount of "help" in a certain place and time, but ultimately weaken their cause through the clever re-allocation of "anti-terrorist" resources.
'Al Qaeda' may be planning to use Iraq as a base for a Jihad. This does not reflexively of course prove, that Al Qaeda's plan to use Iraq as a base for Jihad should be disrupted. Sometimes the wise thing to do, is to let the enemy do what he plans to do.
It should be remembered that the war-hawk element in the US created the situation that now prevails featuring a choice between the US having retreated from an expensive, enmity-producing military adventure in Iraq, and the US continuing to fight in Iraq. Had the war-hawk element never gotten its way, the choice would be between alternatives none of which involved the US ever having plunged into violent combat in Iraq.
LC: The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
Mankind realizes that opponents such as the other team or frightening persons or terrorists could be counting on us doing something, but us doing what they are counting on doing could still be wise. The fact the other side is counting on us doing something, does not in and of itself prove, that we should not do that thing. We have often seen in games such as football, a team coming out and doing what the other team expects it to do, and still winning.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 8:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home