Logic Times

Comments

Page Two

Where are the WMD?

Logic Times FACT - Independent authorities confirmed the existence of WMD.

There is now some doubt about the veracity of these confirmations.  Either way, this is a logical fallacy as it is an appeal to authority. The fact cited speaks to what certain authorities stated; that does not necessarily speak to the veracity of those statements.  Authority of speaker does not mean veracity of fact.

{Aslan:  A good point.  However, I would suggest you slice the point too fine.  My comment was from the perspective of established knowledge at the time made more credible through corroboration from multiple sources.  While this does not speak to the veracity of these authorities, it speaks to circumstantial evidence along the line of many witnesses being more credible than just one.}

Logic Times FACT - The owner of the WMD knew that an attack was coming because of the WMD.

This statement is logically imprecise: What sort of 'cause' are we are talking about here (and we are talking about 'cause' as you used the word 'because')?  And what is being 'caused' - the attack or the owner of the WMD's knowledge that an attack was coming (it depends upon whether one associates 'because' with 'knew' or 'coming.'  Syntactically it would be most proper for 'because' to adhere to 'knew' but contextually that makes the least sense; this sentence is, to say the least, syntactically - and thus logically - ambiguous)?  Now, on the first point, if we are talking about the invasion then the purported existence of the WMD, at best, supplied the final cause for the invasion insofar as certain individuals (i.e. the Bush administration) used this purported existence as warrant for an invasion.  If we are talking about the purported owner's knowledge of the attack then the WMD cannot be said to be causal in any fashion as the purported owner would have known of the attack because of the public rhetoric of the people intending to attack, not because of the WMD.  As the WMD cannot be a cause for the purported owner's knowledge I must assume that the WMD is causal of the attack (although syntactically that is a very difficult interpretation to make).

{Aslan: Sorry, Jonathan, you lose me here.  I understand the thrust of your point, but again the simple reality is there was a condition that, if met, could have defused the military confrontation, similar in form to Moamar Qaddafi’s recent nuclear capitulation.  If Hussein did not have WMD, he clearly knew that revealing this fact would stop the invasion.  My point is that Hussein possessed this knowledge and chose a course of action that suggests (does not prove) that he could not (would not) meet the conditions.}

This is to entirely leave aside the Parmenidean problem of whether or not one can speak about that which does not exist; which is to say that until the existence of Iraqi WMD c. 2002-3 is established one is talking about something that might not have an existence outside the realm of ideas and abstractions.  If these did not exist (and you have not here demonstrated said existence, as citing authorities and evidence that falls outside the date range in question does not constitute sound argumentation for this point) then all discussion about the role which they played in the invasion becomes absurd (as one is then talking about the role which non-existence objects had in the extant world).  One must, instead, talk about the function that the IDEA of Iraqi WMD played in the invasion and the events leading thereto.

{Aslan: Clearly, there were other objectives, as I discuss in The Brilliance of the Bush Plan, that accelerated the conflict.  WMD availability is the Islamic end game in this struggle, and so became its marketing focus.}

Logic Times FACT - No significant caches of WMD have been found in Iraq (Note: sarin-tipped artillery shells have been found).

Which means that the onus is upon those who would argue that they did exist after their last known usage in 1992 and the invasion in 2003.  Again, existence in 1992 does not demonstrate existence in 2003; appeals to authority does not demonstrate existence in 2003; the absence of WMD in 2004 does not demonstrate existence in 2003.  Lest that be established one cannot assume that they existed at the time of the invasion.

{Aslan:  You seem determined to invalidate a part of my argument that is not really there.  The entire thrust of my story was to suggest the most logical question given the circumstances is: Where are the WMD?  Given the lack of proof, you may feel it is more logical we err on the side of doubt and not act.  I would suggest the lesson of 9/11 is that we must err on the side of security and act.}

A more logical use of the facts looks like this:

P1: It is unclear whether WMD existed in Iraq prior to the US invasion in 2003.

P2: No evidence for stockpiles of or the capacity to produce WMD has been found in Iraq since the US invasion in 2003.

C3: Therefore the most parsimonious conclusion is that WMD did not exist prior to the US invasion in 2003

Why is it the most parsimonious: Simply, because it introduces the fewest assumptions (i.e. the assumption that an as-of-yet cache of WMD may exist, which fails on the simple fact that no evidence of such a cache is presented in the argumentation).

{Aslan: While your presentation is concise, it has severe logical flaws.  To conclude C3, you must make two assumptions that are untenable - 1) The most likely reason for not finding weapons is their lack of existence, rather than their effective movement/concealment (given the extended notice of our invasion), and 2) Saddam Hussein, in compliance with the primary conditions to avoid war, chose to pretend that he had something to hide in order to engineer his own destruction.}

3: Anders Adlercreutz

October 16, 2004 02:50am EST

FACT: WMD existed.

Yes, they did, with the blessing of the US. The UN did, however, through their inspections manage to destroy most, if not, as it seems now, all of them after 92.

{Aslan: Then why did Richard Butler leave in 1998 after protesting failure to comply with the inspections?  Why was Saddam not forthcoming with rudimentary evidence that would have exonerated him in 2003 and averted war?  The reality is that, if Saddam did indeed comply with the demand to destroy WMDs and was indeed compliant with the demands of the international community in March of 2003, he chose to act completely counter to this reality.  If that was because of pride, then his pride cost him.  When you are a mass murderer, excuses fall on deaf ears.}

FACT: WMD had been used in the past.

Again with the silent acceptance of the US. But not after 92.

{Aslan: What is this “with the silent acceptance of the US?”  In your country of Finland, you should be fully familiar with true hegemony.  Remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Germany and Russia to divide Europe up, including Finland?  How many times has Russia invaded your country? How about the world imperialism of the British Empire?  Never in the history of the world has such a powerful country conducted its affairs with such ethical responsibility.  This bizarre underground conviction that the US is a shadow imperialist power is not based in fact.  The US could own the Middle East, lock, stock and barrel, if it so chose.  Yet, today we fight wars with a dangerous policy to avoid civilian casualties (that costs American lives) and liberate whole countries with less casualties than a typical Gothic raid across the Rhine 1600 years ago. 

I assume you think that American hegemony brought about 9/11?}

FACT: Independent authorities confirmed the existence of WMD.

In the past yes, but Hans Blix, who by all accounts mast be considered as the foremost expert in THAT field, said he believed there weren't any prior to the invasion.

{Aslan: First, I reject that Blix was a reliable authority.  Yet, even so, Blix was hardly unequivocal in his review.  From the Blix report in March of 2003 – 'The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.  Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.  If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active,” or even “proactive,” these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.  Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.  They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.' 

To a country reeling from 9/11, our tolerance for dissembling and vacillation was low.  And besides, the reason for war with Iraq has to do with the Bush Doctrine, not exclusively with WMDs.}

FACT: The owner of the WMD knew that an attack was coming because of the WMD.

That is the tricky part, and I can only figure that he was so stubborn for reasons of national pride et al. But he did allow the inspectors in, so in that sense he co-operated. But how can you prove that something doesn't exist?

In retrospect I think the teaching is, in the eyes of Bullies United, that if you give the appearance of having WMDs, you'd better be sure to have them, because in that case you're safe (North Korea), otherwise you're screwed (Iraq).

{Aslan: Bullies United is funny.  However, North Korea and Iran are on the radar screen.  In the US determination to wipe out terrorist sponsoring regimes, we had to begin somehwere.  Iraq, the loser in a war of aggression of their own making, "volunteered" to be first.  I have no doubt that, if the issue were solely WMD, we would have let Blix and El Baradei wander around the desert for many months more.  There was another plan behind the WMD: transformation of fundamental Islam (read The Brilliance of the Bush Plan).}

4: Trekram

October 17, 2004 12:38am EST

Aslan, great responses but I'm sorry to say you will forever be sucked into the battle with the Monday Morning Quarterbacks on WMDs. It's simple. Saddam, the real weapon of mass destruction, was and still should be the issue and 10 years of UN babysitting was long enough.  He had to be taken out and the world is a better place for it, even if many don't see or appreciate these facts. If you want to keep on fighting the battle that they still exist somewhere, go right ahead rolling that rock up the hill. In the end it doesn't matter; Saddam, the problem, has been addressed.

{Aslan: You are correct, of course.  Yet, even when the matter is strictly academic, I feel compelled to fight the good fight.}

(more comments here)