By Gene Johnson
I am constantly tweaking this essay for exact historical accuracy and it therefore may not match exactly what is posted on the Progressive Voice website (and greatly abridged in the Progressive Voice).
The following is an analysis of an email chain-letter that I stumbled upon last summer.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
This statement uses imagery to argue that the entire country of Iraq is as equally as violent as a single American city in order to downplay American combat related killings and justify American presence there. There are several reasons this argument is invalid. It is senseless to compare two completely unrelated numbers in order to make one number seem smaller than it is. Detroit's murders are committed by different people, for different reasons, and have different motivations than the combat related killings in Iraq. It is therefore inane to argue that the combat related killings are few because they are compared to the number of murders in an American city. To an American soldier dead on the battlefield as a pawn for jingoism, one combat related killing is one too many. The 400 billion dollar annual military budget could go to programs to help fight ignorance, unemployment, and crime in Detroit and bring down both numbers to zero. Lastly, the phrase "war torn country of Iraq" has nothing to do with the combat related killings. It is misguided imagery as the "war torn country of Iraq," which naturally refers to the people of Iraq and not the soldiers of the United States, has its own murder death toll not being discussed in the comparison.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
FDR:
led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
This argument is designed to be an attack on the Democratic Party and justify the war in Iraq by comparing it to past pre-emptive strikes initiated by democratic administrations. Again, no comparison to equal and unrelated evils justifies another evil. I am personally not a Democrat but an Independent pacifist, and have little higher regard for the Democratic Party then I do for the Republican Party. To argue from the original standpoint defending FDR, however, the assumption is made that his Democrat-controlled administration waged un-provoked war against Germany after mobilizing for retaliation against Japan. This assumption is blatantly ignorant, however, as Germany declared war on the United States, not vice versa. Rebutting from the pacifist standpoint; although the Necessary War was noble, it was tainted by a foreign policy that was apathetic to the rise of fascism and hypocritical about its desire to secure democracy, resulting in a death toll greater than necessary. The trade with Italy while Italy massacred the agrarian Ethiopian society with modern weapons in 1934 and the uncaring lack of support for the Spanish Revolution provide historical evidence for these accusations.
Truman:
finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy:
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson:
turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton:
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
These statements are all solely attacks on Democrat policies and the administrations that carried them out. Ignoring the fact that the Democrats are no more respected by pacifists than Republicans for the very reasons stated above, one cannot justify a Republican war by balancing it against Democratic wars. This is child's logic.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has:
Liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The praising of President Bush is a skillful side-step of issues discussed but a poor justification for his family war. The statements made are partially opinion and partially fact. The reason to go to Afghanistan was to find Osama bin Laden and to eliminate a terrorist-harboring regime. Note, now, that Bush has said in press conferences that finding Osama Bin Laden is not a priority and, added to that, his administration no less than supported the Taliban regime for all of its previous history (during which it was know as the Mujahideen). To be concise, finally, the hand-picked replacement Prime Minister was highly involved in pipeline projects with US energy companies before his appointment. One must consider more of the incredible irony and hypocrisy involved in this liberation. The Mujahideen (which later split into the Taliban and Northern Alliance) was funded 3 billion dollars to fight the Soviet Union during the Cold War and and was also heavily funded and organized by Bin Laden. Much of the elaborate cave system that Osama bin Laden hid in that was torn to pieces by daisy-cutters was formulated by the Cold War era CIA to benefit the Mujahideen (helping make Afghanistan the USSR's Vietnam) and much more of it is already supposed to be well-known to the CIA. As far as having liberated Iraq, it remains true that Iraq is under American martial law, with routine blood-shed on both sides. The idea that Al-Qaeda is crippled is a pointless argument considering the fact that terrorism isn't a number; it is a reality forged by behavior. As cunning government agencies claim that Al-Qaeda leadership is crippled and their numbers are fewer, American policy behavior is lighting the flames of more potential terrorism. However, possibly admirable course of action taken by Bush that is pointed out is his placing of nuclear inspectors in Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. The problem with this justification is that not only could anyone have done it but, quite simply, one right does not correct another wrong, especially in largely independent situations such as this. These countries should have had nuclear inspectors long ago, along with the United States. Lastly, Saddam Hussein is referred to as a terrorist in this argument. Saddam Hussein is head of state, not a terrorist. Terrorists take care of their own business, heads of state tell other people to. Not to mention that Saddam Hussein is not even Islamic and can therefore not have a say in any sort of jihad (though he has feigned such power) or make a fatwa. The only justification I see for Gulf War II in this case is the rescuing of the Kurdish peoples. This is evidently not a priority at all, though, since after the massacre in 1988, the Reagan Administration took no action to condemn the regime beyond mere words. In fact, most of the 300,000 Kurds killed during Saddam's reign were killed during Reagan's administration, with no action on the part of the Unites States to disrupt the death. The Iran-Contra affair provides more evidence of policy hypocrisy during this period.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but:
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at the Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!
These four points are a horrendous use of red herrings. More specifically they are personal attacks on the reader assuming they are a Democrat. Fortunately, I am not a Democrat. Even if I were, however, these have nothing to do with the war in Iraq and have no value to the debate. The length of the war is too long because it should not exist to begin with. Anyone opposing the war in the first place is going to complain about its length by default. Getting technical though, these compare two unrelated timeframes in order to justify one timeframe. Only to the most gullible would this argument ever be effective.
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
These are opinions, most simply, but for the sake of argument, our Commander-In-Chief stole the White House, therefore making him your Commander-In-Chief. The military moral is low, therefore I believe it is meant "morale." Finally, the media is only as biased as the corporations that monitor them and the press that wants to rub shoulders with officials.
My Conclusion: These arguments crutch on partisanship to justify Bush's war in Iraq and are severely crippled by arguing with the logic that one can right wrong with more right and downplay certain accusations with equal or greater accusations that have no relation to one another.
Posts
