Politicking

[Stung]

Manipulation 101:
The controversy over "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"


In a nutshell, this advertisement by MoveOn.org (along with arguments made by other liberals) scrutinizes whether or not the Petraeus testimony has the country's best interests in mind when reporting the marginal successes in Iraq during the 'Surge'. Furthermore, it could be argued that any testimony he supplies is only partially relevant to the big picture of political security and restoring civility, as Joe Biden pointed out, and thus is missing the point of the debate on Iraq policy.

Now to the manipulation over this "controversial advertisement."
The genius of Rovian politics is to deflect, straw man, and grandstand as much as possible, and it is embodied in the right-wing uproar over the MoveOn.org advertisement; McCain and other republicans (by other Republicans I mean Fox News) are demanding that the advertisement be withdrawn, and that other liberals do the 'right' thing by denouncing it themselves. McCain further adds, at least according to Fox News Reports, that if Clinton is not "tough" enough to stand up for what is right on this particular issue, then that is proof enough that she is incapable of being a strong leader for America. Now onto the fallacies that you need to be aware of in order to not be a dope who is persuaded by such drivel.



Fallacies #1 and #2: The Straw Man Argument and summarily the Red Herring . "The Alley Oop Toss" and "Slam Dunk".

First and foremost I must declare that their entire viewpoint misconstrues the question posed by the advertisement as apparently questioning Petraeus' direct and physical loyalty to this country; that is not what is being questioned. What is at the heart of the issue is simply whether or not he has the country's best interests (security) in mind relative to policy on Iraq. It is a complete dismissal of the deeper meaning of this advertisement and focuses solely on the superficial meaning of 'betray'. The beauty of this distortion is that it presents a great opportunity for a red herring, such as "Moveon.org argues against Petraeus' testimony. This means that they are advocating and hoping for failure and civil war in Iraq. The right thing for Politicians to do in response is to ask for the withdrawal of this propaganda from the New York Times." First it twists the argument, and summarily draws one off track from the issue at hand. Do not be misled by such nonsense. My opinion of this issue isn't relevant, but the logical fallacies should not manip-, I mean persuade you to agree with this position.


Fallacies #3 and #4: Ad Populum and The False Dichotomy "Witchhunting"

While fallacy #1 distorts the true argument posed in the ad, supplanting it as being purely slanderous, it also sets it up fallacies #2, 3 and 4 very nicely as making their outrage appear righteous. Do not be fooled by such things. The very basis of this country is not just to allow for, but to promote freedom of speech wherever useful and noncriminal. Rather than embracing such an ideal, those who find this offensive fuel the flames of outrage and the popular suppression of of this civil right via ad Populum, or appeal to the people. This pressures politicians into renouncing/denouncing things they may not necessarily have a problem with, but, due to Fallacy #4--the False Dichotomy (either you denounce this or you're not tough enough to be president)--they have no choice in the matter if they wish to garner public support.


Fallacies #5 and #6. Ad Hominem, aka, "The Bitchslapping", and Fallacy of Composition aka "Duh, Which Way Did He Go George?"


And as a result of surrendering to said false dichotomy, a politician serves themself up for Fallacy #5: The Ad Hominem (Abusive Personal) Attack. While one can see how this is a quality of "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", it is clear that there is a deeper question being asked by Democrats and Moderate Republicans as to whether or not Petraeus' testimony really indeed matters in the big picture. Also, one must be careful not to make a fallacy of composition when referring to the successes in the Surge this summer as meaning success in the Iraq campaign. Just because Carbon isn't inherently poisonous doesn't imply that this translates to all compounds containing carbon. If you believe that, then I have some tasty cyanide for you to try!

Conclusion: The Formula for Success for Rovian Politics

A satirical analogy for the Rovian political model could be interpreted as similar to the nuclear bomb: as the use of one particular fallacy sets into motion a chain reaction of other fallacies, the reaction becomes self sustaining regarding it's target (say, for example, Howard Dean), and eventually causes implosion (think: "ahhhHHHH!!"); the prompt destruction of said target ensues. Excellent way to get elected, but not exactly what I would call a healthy model for the future of the United States. Voters, beware of the issues and the fallacies that deflect one from evaluating these issues.

[Baker]

I know I don't like personal attacks in politics. People don't need to stoop to name calling for a cause.

I don't like personal attacks in arguments, real life or in Quake either.

I think personal attacks are for children, IMHO. Anyone can call names. The world would be such a better place without insults.

[Stung]

I agree with that. I guess a lateral point to make would be for people to learn to ignore them entirely. Suppression is problematic, as I attempt to tacitly convey here.

[spooker]

i deconstruct ads in my head too while i watch them, like this but less complicated. hey i've got some decent false dichotomy:
WORLD = AMERICA + NOT AMERICA

it leads to other fallacies, such as:
some Muslims attack us
attack=bad
muslims=bad

[Baker]

I agree with that. I guess a lateral point to make would be for people to learn to ignore them entirely. Suppression is problematic, as I attempt to tacitly convey here.

I watched some of the Petraeus testimony and an interview he did. He seemed very honest and presented a mixed report with some progress.

I think the whole way the Iraq debates are being painted by some is wrong.

For right or for wrong, we invaded Iraq and caused the current situation. You break it, you buy it.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq now, we would be responsible for far greater damage and loss of life than what is the current situation.

Some would say in hindsight that invading Iraq was a mistake. I believe we cannot know that (you can only judge the effects of actions by the context of the future).

India was British colony and much of what Britain did was wrong in India. But yet that experience dramatically changed India in many positive ways and connected India to the rest of the world thru language and culture; India would never have evolved to be an information technology powerhouse had they not had that experience.

[Stung]

Ya, gotta love that. I mean I understand human nature and how irrational overgeneralizations will occur during times of fear, but this does not validate the invasion and occupation of Iraq nor possible involvement in Iran in the future. (Or labeling countries as an Axis of OMG EVIL.)

[spooker]

you break it you fix it huh..... i think we all know we can't. rule by invaders has never been stable

[Baker]

justify the invasion of Iraq nor possible involvement in Iran in the future. (Or labeling countries as an Axis of OMG EVIL.)

Whether or not invading Iraq was justified doesn't have any bearing on the present situation.

The answer to that question doesn't change whether or not the US is occupying Iraq. If the answer to the prior question is "The invasion was justified" or "The invasion is was justified" we are in Iraq just the same.

In economics, they call that "sunk cost" (i.e. too late, you did it, now deal with it).

you break it you fix it huh..... i think we all know we can't. rule by invaders has never been stable

Do you withdraw and let them all kill each other? Is that moral?

[Stung]

I watched some of the Petraeus testimony and an interview he did. He seemed very honest and presented a mixed report with some progress.

I think the whole way the Iraq debates are being painted by some is wrong.

For right or for wrong, we invaded Iraq and caused the current situation. You break it, you buy it.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq now, we would be responsible for far greater damage and loss of life than what is the current situation.

Some would say in hindsight that invading Iraq was a mistake. I believe we cannot know that.

India was British colony and much of what Britain did was wrong in India. But yet that experience dramatically changed India in many positive ways and connected India to the rest of the world thru language and culture; India would never have evolved to be an information technology powerhouse had they not had that experience.

I think we can evaluate if it was a mistake if we ever allow anything to move forward, which we aren't in our current position of "cork in the bottle". And I don't think an economic cliche really applies to human beings, not that it was intended on your part, but the very problem of imposing our will on them is not going to facilitate any learning or cultural advancement. As with drug addicts, only so much can be done to condition them to act in a manner we see as socially acceptable; appeals to EXTERNAL (us) force are highly unlikely (and considering the U.S.-Iraq history in this particular case, probably impossible) to facilitate such changes. This was foreseen by the developers of the atomic bomb (Oppenheimer, Lawrence, and so forth), who wished to end appeals to force in order to facilitate advancement.

I think that intense and aggressive diplomacy can be a facilitating answer, and it must involve the neighbors who were secondarily affected by the Iraq situation.

As for evaluating whether it was right or wrong right now, if you compare pre-Iraq War policy and its effects to during and post-war effects/casualties, I think one can make an empirical and objective analysis which can discern whether it was simply right or wrong (based on the consequences, mathematically), but where we may differ in this perspective would be relative to our philosophies in life.

I completely agree with the fact that Petraeus was not responsible for answering whether the policy was effective or not; it's not his job to formulate it, rather to implement it. I could get into how I'm not exactly thrilled with the military because of this--how Einstein stated that members of the military, for this very reason, 'need not take their brains into battle, a spinal cord will suffice'-- but that's tangential.

[Baker]

I completely agree with the fact that Petraeus was not responsible for answering whether the policy was effective or not; it's not his job to formulate it, rather to implement it. I could get into how I'm not exactly thrilled with the military because of this--how Einstein stated that members of the military, for this very reason, 'need not take their brains into battle, a spinal cord will suffice'-- but that's tangential.

I don't think the Sunnis and Shites will ever get along. I think they should split Iraq into 3 pieces, build a wall between the Sunni part of the country and the Shite part and gradually withdraw.

The only way the current situation would ever work out is with a big police presence (the US military) for a very long time; I don't think anyone wants that and it wouldn't be good for Iraq either.

[Stung]

There, I edited my comment about justification, I (loathe?) that word baker. :p

[Stung]

I strongly disagree (with anyone) that the U.S. Presence is helpful; trust has to be earned, and we've done little to nothing to do such. Multilateral International involvement is the best way to bring this to fruition.

[spooker]

the threat of post-withdrawal carnage. the domino theory of states falling to al qaeda one by one. hmmmmmmmm...... those were the 2 main arguments for staying in vietnam for 12 years. and they both proved to be wrong.

[Stung]

One thing I found hilarious was Stephen Colbert intertwining shots of republicans using the word "honor" for describing us in Iraq with clips of Klingons claiming it in ST: TNG. Hilariously good comedy.

[Baker]

the threat of post-withdrawal carnage. the domino theory of states falling to al qaeda one by one. hmmmmmmmm...... those were the 2 main arguments for staying in vietnam for 12 years. and they both proved to be wrong.

Countries aren't going to fall to Al Qaeda -- none of them would. Most Middle Eastern countries are brutal police states. Iran, Syria, Egypt are authoritarian countries where causing problems gets you arrested and and rot in prison for 20 years (with beatings).

The problems the Middle East has is due to their demographics. The countries have a ton of young people as a percentage, with high unemployment and low education levels.

Everywhere in the world where you find that, you will find people with problems.

One thing I found hilarious was Stephen Colbert intertwining shots of republicans using the word "honor" for describing us in Iraq with clips of Klingons claiming it in ST: TNG. Hilariously good comedy.

Both sides ought to cut thru all the b.s. and posturing and work on a non-stupid exit strategy. "Let's stay until things are stabilized (forever)" and "Let's withdraw all the troops now (and watch them kill each other)" are both rather ridiculous propositions.

They knew from day 1 that Iraq is a country where the majority (Shites) is not going to respect the minority (Sunnis).