Top Ten Lies/Fallacies about the current violence in Iraq

[KingMenace]

Good article.

Some good ammo against hawks if you happen to live in a red state.

The escalating violence in Iraq's civil war is now earning considerable attention as we pass yet another milestone -- U.S. occupation there, in two weeks, will exceed the length of the Second World War for America. While the news media have finally started to grapple with the colossal amount of killing, a number of misunderstandings persist. Some are willful deceptions. Let's look at a few of them:

1. The U.S. is a buffer against more violence. This is perhaps the most resilient conjecture that has no basis in fact.
Iraqis themselves do not believe it. In a State Department poll published in September, huge majorities say the U.S. is directly responsible for the violence. The upsurge of bloodshed in Baghdad seems to confirm the Iraqis' view, at least by inference. The much-publicized U.S. effort to bring troops to Baghdad to quell sectarian killing has accompanied a period of increased mortality in the city.

2. The killers do it to influence U.S. politics. This was the mantra of right-wing bloggers and cable blowhards like Bill O'Reilly, who asserted time and again before November 7 that the violence was a "Tet offensive" designed to tarnish Bush and convince Americans to vote for Democrats. This is American solipsism, at which the right wing excels. If anything, the violence has grown since November 7.

English-language sources have more than 1,000 dead since the Bush rejection at the polls. Bill, are the Iraqi fighters now aiming at the Iowa caucuses in '08?


3. The "Lancet" numbers are bogus. Since the only scientific survey of deaths in Iraq was published in The Lancet in early October, the discourse on Iraqi casualties has changed. But many in media and policy circles are still in denial about the scale of mayhem.


Anthony Cordesman, Fred Kaplan, and Michael O'Hanlon, among many others, fail to understand the method of the survey -- widely used and praised by leading epidemiologists -- which concluded that between 400,000 and 700,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict. One knowledegable commentator describes the Lancet survey as "flypaper for innumerates," and the deniers indeed look foolishly innumerate when they state that there was "no way" there could be more than 65,000 or 100,000 deaths. As soon as that bit of ignorance rolled off their lips, the Iraq Health Ministry admitted to 150,000 civilians killed by Sunni insurgents alone, which would be in the Lancet ballpark. Much other evidence suggests the Lancet numbers are about right. (See "The Human cost of the War in Iraq" here; fyi, I commissioned the study. More on this another time.)


4. Syria and Iran are behind the violence. There is no compelling reason why the two neighbors would foment large-scale violence that could spill over to threaten their regimes. Iran is in the driver's seat -- as everyone not blinded by neo-con fantasies knew in advance -- with its Shia cousins in power; Syria has its own regime stability problems and does not need the large influx of refugees or potential jihadis. That both are happy to make life hard for the U.S. is not a secret (call it their Monroe Doctrine). But are they organizing the extreme and destabilizing violence we've seen this year? Doubtful. And, there's very little evidence to support this piece of blame-someone-else.

5. The "Go Big" strategy of the Pentagon could work. The Pentagon apparently is about to forward three options to Bush for a retreat: "Go Big," meaning more troops for a short time, "Go Long," a gradual withdrawal while training Iraqis, and "Go Home," acknowledging defeat and getting out. Go Big is what McCain and Zinni and others are proposing, as if adding 20,000 or 30,000 troops will do the trick. The argument about more troops, which speaks also to the "incompetence dodge" (i.e., that the war wasn't wrong, just badly managed), has one problem: no one can convincing prove that modest increments in troop strength will change the security situation in Iraq (see #1 above). One would need 300,000 or more troops to have a chance of pacifying Iraq, and that is neither politically feasible or logistically possible, and is therefore a nonstarter. So is "Go Big."

6. Foreign fighters, especially jihadis, are fueling the violence. This was largely discredited but is making a comeback as Washington's search for scapegoats intensifies. By most estimates, including the Pentagon's, foreign fighters make up a small fraction of violent actors in Iraq -- perhaps 10 percent overall. (This is based on identifying people arrested as fighters.) Some of the more spectacular attacks have been carried out by al Qaeda or its imitators, but overall the violence is due to three forces: U.S. military, Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgents, and Shia militia, with minor parts played by Kurdish peshmerga in Kirkuk and the foreign bad boys.


7. If we do not defeat the violent actors there, they will follow us here. This is now the sole remaining justification for U.S. involvement in the war. If the numbers about foreign fighters are correct, then it is plainly wrong. The main anatgonists are Iraqis, and they will remain there to fight it out for many years. That does not mean we have not created many "terrorists" who would do us harm, as U.S. intelligence agencies assert, but killing them in Iraq is not a plausible option. It's too difficult; aggressive counterinsurgency creates more fighters the longer we stay and harder we try; and they might not be there.


8. The violence is about Sunni-Shia mutual loathing; a pox on both their houses. This is the emerging "moral clarity" of the right wing, that we gave it our best, we handed the tools of freedom to Iraqis, and they'd rather kill each other. That there was longstanding antagonism, stemming from decades of Sunni Arab domination and repression, is well known. But the truly horrifying scale of violence we see now took many months to brew, and is built on the violence begun by the U.S. military and the lack of economic stability, political participation, etc., that the occupation wrought. Equally as important, sectarian killing found its political justification in the constitution fashioned by U.S. advisers that essentially split the country into three factions, giving them a very solid set of incentives to go to war with each other.


9. The war is an Iraqi affair, and the best we can do now is train them to enforce security. This is the more upbeat version of #8, the "Go Long" strategy that sees training as a panacea. Despite three years of serious attempts, the U.S. training programs are bogged down by the sectarian violence itself, or by incompetence all round. No one who has looked at this carefully believes that training Iraqis is a near-term solution. It's a useful ruse as an exit strategy, blaming the victims for violence and failure.

[KingMenace]

...continued

10. Trust the same people who caused or endorsed the war to tell us what to do next. We know who they are: Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other cronies; the neo-cons now increasingly on the periphery of power but still bleating (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Adelman, Lieberman), the liberal hawks, and the right-wing media (Krauthamer, Fox News, Glenn Beck, phalangist bloggers, et al). They say, "just finish the job." Just finish the job... at a human cost of how many more dead? How many lives ruined? How much more damage to U.S.-Arab relations? How much anti-Muslim racism fomented to justify the killing?

The distortions about the violence in Iraq persist even as the mayhem increases. Yesterday there was a report about 100 widows a day being created in Iraq. A Times of London report from last summer notes that gravediggers in one Baghdad cemetery are handling 200 bodies daily, compared with 60 before the war. The situation of the displaced is becoming a humanitarian crisis that will soon rival the worst African cases; the middle and upper classes have fled, leaving the poor to cope. So the poor from the U.S. go to beat up the poor in Iraq, or stand by helplessly as the Iraqi poor ravage each other.


That is the harsh reality of violence in Iraq. A half million dead. More than two million displaced. No end in sight.

Beware the delusions.

John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies.

[double ML]

i always love a bit of fiction in the mornin'

[teq the decider]

This is rich. The author of the article claims to list the top 10 fallacies about violence in iraq and in making the case employs a logical fallacy in practically every instance.

1. The U.S. is a buffer against more violence. This is perhaps the most resilient conjecture that has no basis in fact.
Iraqis themselves do not believe it. In a State Department poll published in September, huge majorities say the U.S. is directly responsible for the violence. The upsurge of bloodshed in Baghdad seems to confirm the Iraqis' view, at least by inference. The much-publicized U.S. effort to bring troops to Baghdad to quell sectarian killing has accompanied a period of increased mortality in the city.

The most egregious fallacy here is ad populum. That an idea is shared by a large number of people says nothing about its veracity.

Considering the large number of insurgents killed or otherwise neutralised by american forces it seems a reasonable supposition that in the absense of american forces the violence would be higher.

2. The killers do it to influence U.S. politics. This was the mantra of right-wing bloggers and cable blowhards like Bill O'Reilly, who asserted time and again before November 7 that the violence was a "Tet offensive" designed to tarnish Bush and convince Americans to vote for Democrats. This is American solipsism, at which the right wing excels. If anything, the violence has grown since November 7.

English-language sources have more than 1,000 dead since the Bush rejection at the polls. Bill, are the Iraqi fighters now aiming at the Iowa caucuses in '08?

this is a combination of the strawman and guilt by association fallacies. The author states the point he wishes to refute and then by choosing an indivudual with whom his reader probably feels a hostility toward(bill o"reily) and attributing to him a garbled argument for the point in question he 'refutes' it.

Its a sad indictment of the authors fatuity that we are only two supposed 'fallacies' in and he has already started to contradict himself. If the militias wish to defeat the US, an enemy it cannot hope to defeat militarily, it by neccesity must opt to do so politically. The two postulates presented by the author, 1)the violent actors are motivated by the american presence and 2)they have no interest in influencing the only thing which could possibly grant them victory, are clearly in conflict.

3. The "Lancet" numbers are bogus. Since the only scientific survey of deaths in Iraq was published in The Lancet in early October, the discourse on Iraqi casualties has changed. But many in media and policy circles are still in denial about the scale of mayhem.


Anthony Cordesman, Fred Kaplan, and Michael O'Hanlon, among many others, fail to understand the method of the survey -- widely used and praised by leading epidemiologists -- which concluded that between 400,000 and 700,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict. One knowledegable commentator describes the Lancet survey as "flypaper for innumerates," and the deniers indeed look foolishly innumerate when they state that there was "no way" there could be more than 65,000 or 100,000 deaths. As soon as that bit of ignorance rolled off their lips, the Iraq Health Ministry admitted to 150,000 civilians killed by Sunni insurgents alone, which would be in the Lancet ballpark. Much other evidence suggests the Lancet numbers are about right. (See "The Human cost of the War in Iraq" here; fyi, I commissioned the study. More on this another time.)

Here we have another combination of fallacies. This time ad verecundiam in conjuction with the false dillema fallacy. The ad verecundiam occurs when the author informs us that an unnamed 'knowledegable commentator' has described some opponents of the report in unflattering terms. How does an anonymous 'knowledgeable comentator's' apparent endorsement of the study(in fact he only derides some critiques of the report but for sake of argument lets assume he does subscribe to its findings) prove that the report is accurate? only a dolt accepts authority in place of argument.

the false dillema is when he notes how some arbitrarily selected lower estimates seem to have been discredited by a release of figures from the iraq health ministry and on that basis asks the reader to assume that the lancet report is correct. That A is false doesnt make B true.

Whether the iraqi figures being in the 'lancet ballpark' can be said to lend significant weight to its findings im not sure. With a margin of error numbering in the 100's of thousands its a pretty big ballpark.

4. Syria and Iran are behind the violence. There is no compelling reason why the two neighbors would foment large-scale violence that could spill over to threaten their regimes. Iran is in the driver's seat -- as everyone not blinded by neo-con fantasies knew in advance -- with its Shia cousins in power; Syria has its own regime stability problems and does not need the large influx of refugees or potential jihadis. That both are happy to make life hard for the U.S. is not a secret (call it their Monroe Doctrine). But are they organizing the extreme and destabilizing violence we've seen this year? Doubtful. And, there's very little evidence to support this piece of blame-someone-else

this is circumstantial ad hominem accompanied by a mess of empty assertions. The author tells us syria and iran have no reason to foment violence in iraq, then suggests they actually do but then says they arent because he doesnt think they are. The circumstantial ad hominem of the last line is the cherry on this cake of confused 'reasoning' when he infers that because if the claim were true it would be beneficial to the claiment it cant possibly be true.

[teq the decider]

5. The "Go Big" strategy of the Pentagon could work. The Pentagon apparently is about to forward three options to Bush for a retreat: "Go Big," meaning more troops for a short time, "Go Long," a gradual withdrawal while training Iraqis, and "Go Home," acknowledging defeat and getting out. Go Big is what McCain and Zinni and others are proposing, as if adding 20,000 or 30,000 troops will do the trick. The argument about more troops, which speaks also to the "incompetence dodge" (i.e., that the war wasn't wrong, just badly managed), has one problem: no one can convincing prove that modest increments in troop strength will change the security situation in Iraq (see #1 above). One would need 300,000 or more troops to have a chance of pacifying Iraq, and that is neither politically feasible or logistically possible, and is therefore a nonstarter. So is "Go Big."

This is the fallacy of begging the question. His refutation of the strategies rests on the presumption that his earlier arguments are true when they are of course a hodpodge of fallacious nonsense.

6. Foreign fighters, especially jihadis, are fueling the violence. This was largely discredited but is making a comeback as Washington's search for scapegoats intensifies. By most estimates, including the Pentagon's, foreign fighters make up a small fraction of violent actors in Iraq -- perhaps 10 percent overall. (This is based on identifying people arrested as fighters.) Some of the more spectacular attacks have been carried out by al Qaeda or its imitators, but overall the violence is due to three forces: U.S. military, Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgents, and Shia militia, with minor parts played by Kurdish peshmerga in Kirkuk and the foreign bad boys.

here we have an example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy. He seeks to refute the argument that foreign fighters are fueling the violence by proving that they are not a majority of the actors. The argument is irrelevant to the point it is presented to discredit.

7. If we do not defeat the violent actors there, they will follow us here. This is now the sole remaining justification for U.S. involvement in the war. If the numbers about foreign fighters are correct, then it is plainly wrong. The main anatgonists are Iraqis, and they will remain there to fight it out for many years. That does not mean we have not created many "terrorists" who would do us harm, as U.S. intelligence agencies assert, but killing them in Iraq is not a plausible option. It's too difficult; aggressive counterinsurgency creates more fighters the longer we stay and harder we try; and they might not be there.

This is just a steaming heap of incoherrence. They wont attack the US if we withdraw from iraq because theres not many foreign terrorists there and they are all just iraqis who will stay in iraq but some wont but we cant fight them there because if you kill a terrorist his blood fuses with minerals in the soil and more terrorists grow but theyll stay if we go and some wont but they wont and so there.

8. The violence is about Sunni-Shia mutual loathing; a pox on both their houses. This is the emerging "moral clarity" of the right wing, that we gave it our best, we handed the tools of freedom to Iraqis, and they'd rather kill each other. That there was longstanding antagonism, stemming from decades of Sunni Arab domination and repression, is well known. But the truly horrifying scale of violence we see now took many months to brew, and is built on the violence begun by the U.S. military and the lack of economic stability, political participation, etc., that the occupation wrought. Equally as important, sectarian killing found its political justification in the constitution fashioned by U.S. advisers that essentially split the country into three factions, giving them a very solid set of incentives to go to war with each other.

with every paragraph the article authors already limited powers of reasoning seem to degenerate still further. Here he amazingly seeks to rubbish the idea that the sunni and shia used what the u.s affored them to indulge in large scale killing by claiming that the sunni and shia used what the u.s afforded them to indulge in large scale killing!

9. The war is an Iraqi affair, and the best we can do now is train them to enforce security. This is the more upbeat version of #8, the "Go Long" strategy that sees training as a panacea. Despite three years of serious attempts, the U.S. training programs are bogged down by the sectarian violence itself, or by incompetence all round. No one who has looked at this carefully believes that training Iraqis is a near-term solution. It's a useful ruse as an exit strategy, blaming the victims for violence and failure.

his poor mind degenerates even further. In the midst of another selection of assertions masquerading as argument he manages to incorrectly cite his own article. The go long strategy is referenced in #5 but he claims it is referenced in #8.

10. Trust the same people who caused or endorsed the war to tell us what to do next. We know who they are: Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other cronies; the neo-cons now increasingly on the periphery of power but still bleating (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Adelman, Lieberman), the liberal hawks, and the right-wing media (Krauthamer, Fox News, Glenn Beck, phalangist bloggers, et al). They say, "just finish the job." Just finish the job... at a human cost of how many more dead? How many lives ruined? How much more damage to U.S.-Arab relations? How much anti-Muslim racism fomented to justify the killing?

thats it, the rapid decline we have observed in the authors already confused thinking over the course of this article has reached rock bottom. His tenth fallacy about violence in iraq doesnt even have anything to do with with claims about violence in iraq!

[Extreme Venom]

U.S. occupation there, in two weeks, will exceed the length of the Second World War for America.


nice fact..

[KingMenace]

Originally Posted by teq the decider

thats it, the rapid decline we have observed in the authors already confused thinking over the course of this article has reached rock bottom. His tenth fallacy about violence in iraq doesnt even have anything to do with with claims about violence in iraq!

The people that lead us into the war with Iraq has nothing to do with the violence in Iraq? Even though these people were warned that US occupation in Iraq would lead to just this sort of escalation in violence.

Guess I miss the logic of your argument.

[teq the decider]

Originally Posted by KingMenace

The people that lead us into the war with Iraq has nothing to do with the violence in Iraq? Even though these people were warned that US occupation in Iraq would lead to just this sort of escalation in violence.

Guess I miss the logic of your argument.

The logic is quite simple. Does the article set itself the task of listing the advocates of war? No, the article sets out to list misunderstandings about the current situation in iraq and detail what the reality is(in eyes of the author at least). I fail to see how the tenth item on the list, a ranting diatribe against endorsers of the war, can be construed as dealing with such a misunderstanding. Its like he forgot what he was supposed to be talking about.

[teq the decider]

Originally Posted by Extreme Venom

U.S. occupation there, in two weeks, will exceed the length of the Second World War for America.


nice fact..

No it isnt, its not true and would be irrelevant even if it were. The coalition's continued presence in iraq is at the consent of iraq's democratically elected government. The US is no more occupying iraq anymore than it is occupying south korea, germany or anywhere else its soldiers are presently based.

[double ML]

ever hear of a war that wasn't violent?

idiot.

[menaz]

Teq check your PM's, I left you a message.