Two posts for the price

Post un: Iraq

While driving to work this morning, I tuned in to NPR and heard the President outline his future strategy for Iraq. More of the same, about says it. I won't dwell on it. I want to discuss something that came after the speech and something that I have often thought about.

It is my understanding that what goaded the President into addressing the nation is the criticism that terrorism seems to be far from declining in Iraq. Insurgents are hitting Iraqi civilian and American military targets daily.

There were post-speech analyses by various grand poohbahs. Also, this being NPR an' all, there was an effort to be balanced. So you had Russ Feingold, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, telling us what exactly what he thought of the President's plan, and also, his grip on reality.

And then there was Iliana Ross-Leighten, Republican Congressperson from Florida, who spiritedly defended the war in Iraq. It is something she said that I want to focus on.

The host of the show (I forget his name) asked this question of the Congressperson: "But ma'm, there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. So why are we in Iraq?"

Now this is something that I have often wondered about myself. Though idly, because I am a non-American and therefore there are a few degrees of separation between my individual self and this war. I do not even personally know anybody who is serving in or has died fighting this war. Am I within my rights to wonder about the reasons for this war, then? Well, only to the extent that it is a global event. Just as an American has the right to wonder about and investigate the cause of the Asian tsunami, I suppose I might, as an Indian, be forgiven my curiousity about the cause of a war that is responsible for the death of regular people in another part of the world. Why did the US invade Iraq, specifically? Why not Pakistan, father and occassional peddler of the Islamic nucelar bomb? Why not Sudan? Or Saudi Arabia. So the host's question to the Congressperson made me sit up and pay attention.

Now before I tell you what Congresswoman Iliana Ross-Leighton's reply was, let me go off on a minor tangent and tell you that I, personally, believe in simplicity. Simple is good. And the simple answer to the host's question is of course this, "Well, we decided to go into Iraq because of a pressingly important reason which can be summed up with the following two words: just cuz. And since we are now in it, we gotta knuckle down and fix it. Or at least, we have to try."

But the Congresswoman did not say this because no politician can, for obvious reasons, speak the embarassing truth. Also, the above answer does not make for good copy.

So instead, she said this (And I may not be getting this verbatim because I am not an aural eidetic, but I'm pretty sure that I am capturing the gist):

Quoth she, "The point I am trying to make is: people say that we are getting attacked by terrorists because we are in Iraq. But what about 9/11? We were not in Iraq then, and we got attacked."

I would have driven off the road laughing, except for the fact that I didn't. That answer is such a mess that I don't even know where to begin. It first attempts to avoid the question, then begs the question, is trivially true, and misdirects.

Let's examine misdirection first. Note that if you invert the last sentence, this conclusion arises: Had we been in Iraq then, we would not have been attacked.

Invert the logic and you create a bogus link between Iraq and 9/11! Sweet! It becomes a little frightening when you consider that a minor variation on this sort of reasoning, dressed up in political spin, was essentially the rhetoric that was used to sell the war to Americans in the first place. Apparently, some people still hold to it.

Consider that sentence again: We were not in Iraq then, and we got attacked.

So what IS the problem with the reasoning in that last sentence? The problem with that sentence is NOT that it is not true. The problem is that it is too true.

Here is what I am talking about. You can substitute the name of almost any country for Iraq and it does not change the truth content of the Congresswoman's statement. For example, how about this: "But what about 9/11? We were not in Greenland then, and we got attacked." 

Or: "But what about 9/11? We were not in Germany then, and we got attacked." 

That is the problem with the reasoning. It can be used to sell ANY war against any country.

Actually the replacement word does not even have to be the name of a country. It could be a profession or a hobby or anything. How about this: "We were not into Feng Shui then, and we got attacked." Or: "We were not into semi-nude mud-wrestling then, and we got attacked."

The statement is trivially true.

The statement becomes non-trivial only when it can be proved that Iraq (or Greenland or Feng Shui) was responsible for terrorism directed against the United States ex ante, and hence we could have pre-empted 9/11 by being in Iraq (or by being in Greenland or by following Feng Shui).

The good Congresswoman is stretching mightily to draw (sell?) the inference that Iraq was actively involved in: (A) terrorism in general, and (B) 9/11 in particular, by implying that not being in Iraq led to the attack on 9/11. 

But that is exactly the sort of conventional wisdom that we are questioning. The question is if Iraq was connected to 9/11. The question is if the United States did not just waste a whole bunch of resources (yes, that is an insensitive and callous way of saying "lives") fighting a war that did not need to be fought. Or needed to be fought elsewhere.

The Congresswoman's statement is therefore also a good example of begging the question. Simply restate the question as an assertion and use it to support your argument. Turn your desired conclusion into a premise. Sweet. I must learn to do this sometime.

---

Post deux: A Photo Blog

I sometimes analyze the content of my blog. It is a sobering thing to do. Criticism is the cheapest kind of talk and my blog has a lot of it.

If you want to see creativity, check this out: Babu's Photo Journal. I was surprised to find the author commenting on my earlier post. If I am not mistaken, this is of course my friend D from New Jersey. D, I really like the comments that you tag your pictures with; they make the pictures come alive. I liked this one especially: Traffic is chaotic and unruly in Aizawl, as in most other Indian cities. Police is a mere witness. But everything works out in the end.