EDITORIALS
Logical fallacies fail in the
face of Iraq reality
Television
"reality" shows, much the rage for
the past several seasons, pale in comparison
to the real events occurring in Iraq. However,
those orchestrating the war are as devoid of
understanding of the true nature of events and
their probable outcomes as their TV counterparts.
The arguments they present for continuing the
war are replete with inaccurate statements and
logical fallacies.
The lack of sound reasoning on the part of pundits
and so-called "beltway experts" continues
to wreak havoc on Iraqi civilians, American
soldiers, and the entire world. Neoconservatives
demonstrate the same erroneous logic regarding
war as they have in economics and the social
sphere (we'll save those other topic areas for
another discussion).
Many supporters of the invasion
of Iraq have retrospectively changed their positions
about their original premise for war yet continue
to suffer from the same lack of clarity of mind
that led to faulty analysis and assessment in
the first place. As Aristotle, a man who understood
logical reasoning, once wrote, "There is
a foolish corner in the brain of the wisest
man."
Logical fallacies are errors in
reasoning. They are defects in an argument that
causes it to be invalid, unsound or weak. The
most common group - formal fallacies - are those
deductive arguments that appear reasonable but
are in fact structurally invalid. For example:
1. All humans are mammals. (premise)
2. All dogs are mammals. (premise)
3. All humans are dogs. (conclusion)
New York Times columnist Nicholas
Kristof provides an excellent example of the
type of logical fallacies that have become all
too present in considering what should be done
next in Iraq. In a recent column (Saving the
Iraq Children (November 27, 2004) he draws attention
to the troubling situation of deteriorating
health in that country, but his main issue is
to attack those who oppose the war.
Kirstof uses disingenuous arguments
to continue to justify the continued occupation
of Iraq while attacking those who work for peace.
He states that the biggest risk to Iraqis come
from "the small but growing contingent
on the left that wants to bring our troops home
now" and follows this premise with the
following supporting data:
· The recent report by the Lancet that
"risk of death by violence was 58 times
greater after the war than before, and infant
mortality also nearly doubled."
· A report, in the Washington Post, that
"acute malnutrition among children under
5 soared to 7.7 percent this year from 4 percent
before the war."
From this data, Kristof takes
a big leap to conclude that the that the worsening
health situation is a result of a worsening
security situation and he sets the stage for
his second (unstated) premise, that the U.S.
occupies Iraq in order to improve the security
situation in that country.
Kristof's first fallacy - a hasty
generalization - is one of the most common,
and it usually results from a lack of knowledge.
Hasty generalizations based on incomplete or
inaccurate information lead to another type
of logical fallacy - joint effect - where one
thing is held to cause another when in fact
both are effects of a single underlying cause.
For example, there is ample data to suggest
that both the worsening health situation and
increasing security problems can be laid to
the feet of American mismanagement of energy
which affects everything from the delivery of
supplies to clean water and refrigeration of
medicines.
During the past year both oil
and electrical production have improved. At
the same time, less is flowing to the Iraqi
people than it did under UN sanctions before
the war. Now there are mile-long lines to purchase
gasoline and frequent electrical outages even
today, 20 months after the occupation began.
Output has improved even while insurgents have
tried to disrupt supplies, so what gives? Why
is a growing gap between production and supply?
An internal study by the US Army
found that the 135,000 US troops and their foreign
contractors, laden with airconditioners, widescreen
televisions, and hummers, are using more of
Iraq's energy resources than the country can
support. This is having a disastrous effect
on the health of Iraqis
much more than
the security situation. An example of this was
provided earlier this year in the City of Hilla,
near Babylon.
American journalist Dahr Jamail
visited that city and spoke with Salmam Kadel,
Chief Engineer of the city's water treatment
plant. The Engineer said that before the before
and even during the invasion there was plenty
of fresh water for his community. However, soon
after Americans arrived in Baghdad electricity
to Hilla became more sporadic
making pumps
unusable. After that residents had to rely on
water from dirty streams. Dysentery, cholera,
nausea, diarrhea, and other water-born illnesses
quickly spread. "It was much better before
the invasion. We had 24 hours running water
then. Now we are drinking this garbage because
it is all we have," said Kadel.
Much of the analysis of the reality
of Iraq is based not on knowledge about the
situation in that country but on faulty assumptions
about conditions there, particularly by apologists
for military intervention.
Like Kristof those who supported
going to war in the first place disingenuously
proceed to argue "if U.S. troops leave
Iraq too soon, the country will simply fall
apart" and the health situation will become
worse. Those who support war in all of its inherent
ferocity of death and destruction try to disguise
their motives under the mantle of humanitarian
intervention. "It would be inhuman to abandon
them now."
Notwithstanding, the greatest
falsehood presented by those who favor staying
in Iraq is to proclaim a false dilemma, giving
two choices (either stay or it will fall apart)
when there are many other options. Statements
such as a "US withdrawal would lead to
'anarchy, terrorism, and starvation'" are
not only egregious assumptions but also non
sequiturs when there's greater weight of evidence
that those things have actually increased as
a result of America's occupation. One could
more easily argue that the burden of supporting
135,000 (soon to be 150,000) foreign troops
and their entourage is the primary contributing
factor to the worsening situation and the sooner
the US leaves the better.
Now is a time when wiser heads,
not those that got us in the situation in the
first place, must prevail. The situation in
Iraq will not improve without correct thinking.
And unlike reality TV, real lives are at stake
in this drama.
Peace - Charlie
|