QandO

April 16, 2004

Attack of the Strawman
Posted by McQ

EJ Dionne partakes of a little intellectual dishonsty and ignorance and ends up with a great strawman argument:

Now Bush has the nerve to say that those Americans concerned that Iraq might turn into Vietnam are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The analogy, he said Tuesday, "sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy."

In light of the "truce" offer from Bin Laden, I'd ask EJ what might have driven Bin Laden's effort to "divide-and-conquer"? Was it because the world had produced a committed and united front, or was it because there were evident differences of opinion and a perceived lack of will on at least a part of the world to participate or condone what hand happened with Iraq?

Yeah, right ... the latter.

And what has he then done? He's tried to take ADVANTAGE of that perceived lack of will in Europe.

Last time I looked, he was the "enemy". So those who've opposed the war in Iraq in Europe have essentially given him the idea that this divide-and-conquer routine is viable. Its apparently given him some 'aid and comfort', enough to say:

Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources. [emphasis mine]

Now, considering Bin Laden's words, how do you suppose our enemy reacts when we make comparisons to Vietnam?

Bin Laden's already citing dissidence and "polls" in his European truce tape. Upon our own politicians and talking heads using the Vietnam analogy, what might be the perception our "enemy" is likely to take from that?

Why is that a different type of dissidence from which he WON'T take aid and comfort?

Maybe a little comfort to know we're divided? Maybe a little aid in knowing how to craft his message to the American people? And what about the insurgents? Do you suppose they don't feel some comfort in knowing we're divided and comparing what they're putting us through to Vietnam?

Can anyone honestly say that the purpose of using the analogy of Vietnam in comparison to Iraq is a POSITIVE and HELPFUL comparison? Is it even a true comparisoin? Or does it just conjure visions of hopeless struggle, needless death and eventual failure?

Dionne wants to pretend this is all because there weren't enough troops on the ground to begin with. Well, if their job was to defeat Saddam's military, that's obviously not true. Those that were on the ground did so in record time and minimal effort.

No, what sends the wrong message is when our country doesn't put enough troops on the ground in the first place to do the job right. It doesn't help that you were unwilling to make clear in advance that bringing democracy to Iraq would involve a long struggle and a great expenditure of American treasure. It doesn't make our troops more secure for a president to divide the country by trashing his critics as unpatriotic. And it doesn't build support for a great experiment in democratization when the president fails to explain how he is going to win the thing.

What Dionne attempts to do is make the point that, like 9/11, we should have been precient concerning what was going to happen in Iraq.

We should have KNOWN that Iraqi security forces would melt away. We should have KNOWN every level of government would have collapsed and disappeared. We should have KNOWN that Iraqis would have looted their own country on an unprecedented scale. And, we should have KNOWN that our troops would have to fill roles they aren't and weren't trained to fill.

Well, that's just nonsense. While I'm not about to give Bush a pass on the administration's handling of post war Iraq, it isn't the problem of "too few troops" to do the job. It isn't the JOB of troops to nation build, never has been.

If EJ wants to make a legitimate point, then it should be made about a lack of a coherent plan to emplace the CIVILIAN COMPONENT (bureaucracy) necessary to nation-build. But it isn't the job of the troops. No matter how many troops you have, they're not TRAINED to be police, nor can they take their place.

Dionne says "It doesn't help that you were unwilling to make clear in advance that bringing democracy to Iraq would involve a long struggle and a great expenditure of American treasure."

EJ must not have been listening closely when all of this began. Bush said "The rise of Iraq as an example of moderation and democracy and prosperity is a massive and long-term undertaking."

Apparently, Dionne must think that means "a year".

I can only surmise from Dionne's petulant remarks that he was somehow unaware that freeing a country and the stabalizing it couldn't be done on the cheap, either in time or treasure. He seems ignorant of our previous nation-building stints in both Europe and Japan and the cost and time they took, or the present one underway in Kosovo. One can only assume Dionne to be a product of our public school system who wakes up in a new world everyday, completely ignorant of history.

"It doesn't make our troops more secure for a president to divide the country by trashing his critics as unpatriotic."

But it IS patriotic to trash the president, trash the effort in Iraq and compare it to Vietnam, and then pretend it doesn't give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Sorry EJ, you can't have it both ways.

And it doesn't build support for a great experiment in democratization when the president fails to explain how he is going to win the thing."

"Win the thing?' What's to win? The deed is done. The clean-up of those still in opposition to that deed is underway in Iraq. That sort of reaction is to be expected, and it takes TIME. This is not some TV war which is over in an hour including messages from the sponsors.

Why is it that Dionne has to have this 'explained' to him when the majority of Americans already understand?

Because he's reacting to criticism out of pure petulance. He's peeved that he's one of those who've been pointed to as not being helpful. And make no mistake, he's chosen to translate that criticism into being called "unpatriotic", just as Max Cleland and other have. This is a strawman argument which hopes to innoculate those making it from the consequences of irresponsible remarks. Of course to "win" that fight, he has to completely ignore the evidence, such as OBL's latest tape, which points to the criticism having some validity.

Its all about his "patriotism", which translates into his absolute right to make irresponsible remarks with no penalty.

Well EJ, those days are over ... forever.

TrackBack