Logic Times

Comments

Page Three

Where are the WMD?

5: Jonathan Bernier

October 17, 2004 09:42am EST

To Trekram,

Given that this site is called Logic Times I must look at the logic of your most recent comment, with which Aslan agreed.  Your argument, as I read it, looks like this:

P1: The UN sanctions and regulations have been unsuccessful in curbing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

C2: Therefore he had to be removed from power.

C3: Therefore it is irrelevant to ask whether or not he had WMD.

Problem: The US administration's pre-war argument for the invasion of Iraq looked like this:

P1: UN sanctions and regulations have been unsuccessful in eliminating WMD in Iraq.

P2: Hussein must be disarmed.

C3: Therefore we must use military force to compel disarmament.

Given that this was the basis for the war the question of WMD is hardly irrelevant: It is central.  Quite simply the warrant for war against Iraq was predicated upon the assumption that Saddam Hussein had WMD; if it cannot be demonstrated conclusively that he had said weapons than the warrant for war cannot be proven conclusively.  In short the degree to which the WMD can be shown to have existed immediately prior to the 2003 invasion is precisely the same degree to which the war can be shown to have been warranted - for the argument is unsound (and thus, properly speaking, not entirely logical as the argument would be valid but not sound) if one cannot show that P1 and P2 are based upon an accurate depiction of reality.  

{Aslan: Trekram, please respond.}

To Aslan: In your response to my comments you make the statement that "If Hussein did not have WMD, he clearly knew that revealing this fact would stop the invasion."  Elsewhere you state that I assume that "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)."  These two statements are somewhat paradoxical when put beside one another.  The latter assumes what is, in essence, a hermeneutic of suspicion: That we must read the absence of WMD as evidence that Hussein had WMD but hid them in the interval between the first saber-rattling about invasion and the invasion proper.  Thus I must assume that you would read any attempt on Hussein's part to reveal the absence of WMD through the same hermeneutic of suspicion, that you would be likely to say "Well, he's really got them but he's hiding them and only revealing what is in his best interest to reveal"; this in turn compels me to ask "What evidence could Saddam Hussein have presented for the absence of WMD that you would have considered satisfactory?"

{Aslan: That is an excellent chain of reasoning, but made somewhat incomplete by your hermeneutic of suspicion - "That we must read the absence of WMD and the refusal to demonstrate that their absence was a result of their destruction as evidence that Hussein had WMD but hid them in the interval between the first saber-rattling about invasion and the invasion proper."

Your final question remains valid, however.  Hussein could have allowed unfettered access to sites and scientists; an open book of cooperation would have been sufficient.  Understand, that the US goal was that the potential linkage between a state with a demonstrated capacity to use WMD and Al Qaeda not be allowed to flourish.  An open door policy, which even Hans Blix acknowledged was not in place, would have been sufficient to allay US concerns.}

This gets to a much deeper epistemological question, by the way: How can one ever conclusively demonstrate the absence of anyway?  I would argue that in most cases one cannot as properly speaking absence can only be demonstrated through showing that positive evidence is not present; however, since absence is properly speaking the absence of positive evidence one ordinarily cannot present positive evidence for absence.  Consequently the onus is not upon those who would argue that WMD did not exist in Iraq c. 2003 as they can only rely upon the absence of positive evidence to make their case; the onus is upon those who would argue that WMD did exist as they (and only they) can rely upon positive evidence to make their case.  I would thus argue that the current lack of evidence for the WMD and the suspicion that has been cast upon earlier evidence for WMD indicates that the positive argument has not been proven conclusively - and the degree to which the positive argument has not been proven is precisely the degree to which the negative argument has room in which it can be articulated.

{Aslan: You are, of course, correct about the general impossibility of proving a negative.  However, as mentioned above, a complete open door policy – not an unreasonable demand of a defeated foe – would have sufficed.  

Good stuff, though, Jonathan!}

6: Anders Adlercreutz

October 17, 2004 09:50am EST

It is fairly well documented that the US knew about the Iraqi use of chemical weapons against their own people, weapons that had been manufactured using US technology and know-how. The US did still continue to support Iraq against Iran as it was seen as the lesser of two evils. It was realpolitik, plain and simple. Supporting an oppressive regime against another served US purposes.

In that context it is hypocrisy to use those past uses of WMD as a reason to attack Iraq 15 years later. It is also ironic that the US is spending incredible amounts of resources fighting forces it has to a large part helped create, The Taliban and Saddam.

{Aslan: Two thoughts – 1) While the US has made geopolitical moves that are marginally ethical, can you identify for me a global power that has conducted its affairs with a fraction of the restraint and humanity of the US?  The fact is that the US, even with the blemishes you point out, is ethically so far superior to every other historical world power that there is not even a debate on the subject.  Some credit on this front would be appreciated.  2) Can people and countries learn?  The US learned a lesson on 9/11 – don’t compromise right and wrong for geopolitical expediency or it will hurt you.  Now, the primary motivation for 9/11 has little to do with US hegemony and is predominantly a matter of the violent Islamic rejection of the Western culture (yours included).  Nonetheless, past support of present enemies is an untenable position.  You will see the US slowing distancing itself from Saudi Arabia (we no longer have troops there) and changing our stance with other friendly Islamic countries.}

If the goal in Iraq is spreading democracy it's off to a terribly bad start. Fundamental Islam that used to be pretty much absent is all over the place. Supporters of other religions are fleeing the country. The religious atmosphere has severely radicalized, Spreading democracy using military power is very difficult, and it seems as if Bush et al really haven't been up to the task.

If it is a part of The War Against Terrorism, which I find hard to believe, it has worked against its purpose. Terrorists, which didn't have much presence in the region are flooding in. And the mere presence of American soldiers, let alone what happened in Abu Ghraib, is feeding their base. The fact that Iraq in many ways was the enemy of AQ shouldn't be ignored either.

{Aslan: Anders, this is entirely untrue.  First, your perspective on the time it takes for a country to transition from dictatorship to democracy is not historical.  Look at the Life Magazine below and recall the editorial from the New York Times in 1945 describing how the US had failed to democratize Germany (October 1945):

'The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.

 

This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers form the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15. "We have been talking since the summer about the trouble that we expect this winter," the source said. "That trouble has now begun and we meet it with a plan to withdraw officers from communities where trouble is already being encountered."'

.

These things take time.  I do notice you are silent about Afghanistan, whose elections – the first in 5,000 years – went off quite well last week.  Second, one doesn’t spread democracy using military power.  One removes an impediment to democracy – a dictator – and provides security for the natural human condition – liberty – to flourish. Third, the coalition is winning the war on terrorism.  However, the anti-US media (in Europe and America) do not convey this reality.  If I showed only the crime taking place in downtown Helsinki (the worst part) day after day and asked you to draw a conclusion about life in Finland, what would that be?  Certainly not representative of Finnish life.  The opportunity to distort the events in Iraq is there; the question you need to ask yourself is whether the media is taking that opportunity.  Read these reports on the war on terror – here, here, here, here, and here – and tell me if you think the US is winning or losing.}

Looking at the US from abroad it seems that it is shooting itself in the foot time and again. It is feeding the terrorists with sources of inspiration, strengthening their polarized view of the world. It is alienating its own allies with its rhetoric. But to the American people it seems to be enough that you use Bold Words and shout loud. If the rest of the world, especially us whining Europeans, is against your current politics they can't be wrong?

Clinton was popular over here, Bush the elder was considered OK, some even liked RR, though much of what he achieved more was due to Gorbachev's achievements than RR's own. But this GWB is driving us crazy. I find it totally inconceivable that 50% of the Americans can even consider voting for him. He's bad for the world, he's a catastrophe for the US. But now I’m sliding OT again ;-)And yes I know the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Soviet Union tried to invade us 2 times.

Anders Adlercreutz

Helsinki, FInland

{Aslan: Now THAT’S hegemony!  Anders, got bad news for you – Bush will get re-elected.  I have a question for you, however.  You desribe chaos in Iraq - is it your preference that Saddam Hussein still be in power?  Did both Hussein and Mussolini make the trains run on time?}

(more comments here)