Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part II
In the last post in this series I have looked at some of the reasons given for why we should leave Iraq. Probably the most serious argument for leaving is the claim that we cannot win and that the sooner we leave the better, often with a comparison to Vietnam. The comparison to Vietnam is very problematic for many reasons, not the lease of which the historical ignorance of most Americans. For example one student who received a B in history, when asked about WWII did not know what year it ended, could not name any general or any battle, and did not even know who the President was during the war. (Some answers: 1945; Eisenhower, Midway, Roosevelt) However she did remember details about the Japanese internment camps, as “We talked a lot about those concentration camps” This pretty much epitomizes the modern “liberal” education; what is important is that the student come away knowing how bad American has been. I don’t expect that historical knowledge of Vietnam is any better, especially given the political nature of the war.
Senator Kennedy summed up what is probably the view of many, assuming they know anything at all, when he said, “In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next. There was no military solution to that war. Echoes of that disaster are all around us today” I agree that echoes of Vietnam are all around us, but not in the way Kennedy sees it.
For sake of space I will skip the complexities of how our involvement began, and instead focus on how it ended. Most of those still alive at the time can still remember the humiliating defeat suffered in Vietnam which has come to be symbolized by the photographs of the helicopters on the roof of the US embassy evacuating as many as they could. What is hazy is the sequence of events leading up to that defeat. Following his election in 1968, Nixon pursued a policy of Vietnamization (the transferring the fighting to the South Vietnamese army), bombing, and negotiations. By mid-1969 troop reductions began, and in January 1973 a peace agreement was signed, which called for the withdrawal of all US troops and the return of POWs, which was completed by the end of March of that year. In many respects this was the ended of the war and at this point it was not a defeat. In fact it could be called a victory.
It was also about the time that Watergate was growing into a major scandal that a year later would force Nixon to resign. With the Presidency weaken, Congress began to limit the ability of the president to respond, and contrary to our commitments under the peace agreement, reduce our funding to South Vietnam. These reductions greatly impacted their ability to defend themselves. In December 1974, North Vietnam decided to test the resolve of the new President and violated the peace treaty. Because of congressional restrictions, there was little that Ford could do other than protest diplomatically. Seeing that they had little to fear from the US, North Vietnam began to plot a takeover of the South, which began in March 1975.
Some have argued that the South Vietnamese were not worth it because they would not fight for their country. Perhaps. We will never really know. Certainly some did run, but other did fight bravely. Yet given underfunding by the Congress, and the fact that the Soviets were fully funding the North, combined with the limitations Congress place on the President, the South never had a chance. So did those who ran, run because they would not fight for their country, or did they run because they could see the writing on the wall? Determination to fight does little good when your guns are out of bullets and your tanks are out of gas. In any event, by the end of April it was all over, and you had the helicopters on the roof of the US embassy, a little over two years after the end of the military conflict. That was when you had the humiliating defeat, a defeat brought on more by Congress than the military.
So our defeat in Vietnam while very real, can in no way be consider a military defeat. Despite the Hollywood stereotypes, our troops served valiantly and militarily succeeded, even in engagements such as the Tet offensive. The Tet Offensive is commonly viewed as a defeat and the turning point in the war. Yet in military terms it was a significant victory. But, as in the current war (and for that matter most wars in the last 100 years) the battle for public opinion at home is as significant as the military conflict itself. Negative images, often very misleading shown on the nightly news, and a steady stream of negative information turned public opinion turned against war. With presidency weakened, the anti-war forces were able to block the fulfillment of our obligations under the peace treaty and ensure the fall of the South and thus our defeat.
Echoes of Vietnam? Sure. In both cases the anti-war advocates push for a withdrawn at any cost. In both cases the anti-war advocates were driven by a tremendous hatred for the President. And in both cases they show very little concern for what would happen if they got their way. However there is one big difference. In Vietnam, there never was any concern that the North Vietnamese would follow us back to our country if they won. The same cannot be said about the terrorists.
A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part I
June 22, 2007, Wausau, Wi— Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” is yet another in a long line of books which attempts to make the claim that believing in God is irrational. As with the other attempts, Dawkins ultimately ends up only demonstrating his own lack of critical analysis. There is a very simple rule in critical thinking that I teach all of my classes: Anything can be accepted if you only consider the evidence in favor, and conversely anything can be rejected if you only consider the evidence against. While this is a pretty straight forward and simple rule, it is one that Dawkins runs afoul of from the very first page.
Dawkins, citing the John Lennon song “Imagine” wonders, “Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’, no ‘honour killings’, no shiny-suited bouffant-hair televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give till it hurts.’) Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheading of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.” (pp 1-2)
This one passage reveals three major problems with Dawkins’ approach. The first we have already mentioned. This is a list that contains only negative items. What about the positive? What about the good that religion has done? As I point out in my book, Christianity and Secularism, with Christianity’s rise to dominance after the fall of Rome, it brought for the first time an ethic of kindliness, obedience, humility, patience, mercy, purity, chastity, and tenderness. (p 101) Nor, without religion, would the church have been able to try to settle disputes between rulers during the middle ages so as to avoid war, nor limit the killing of civilians. Nor would Christians have been able to stress the equality of all people, nor lay the foundations of science and human rights, nor push for, and eventually achieve, the abolition of slavery. Christians by no means have a perfect record in this area, and in fact have far too often failed o live up to the teaches of Jesus, but by no means is the record all negative as Dawkins “Imagines.”
Dawkins second major error is to treat all religions as the same. They are not. In fact of the 15 things Dawkins want to imagine the world without, 11 of the 15 involve Islam either exclusively or in conflict with others. The simple fact is that, of all the major world religions, only Islam was founded by a military leader. Through-out its history, Islam as been spread by force of arms, and there remains today a significant percentage of Islam who support the use force and coercion to maintain and spread their religion. The issue is not one of religion or no religion and Dawkins would imagine and in fact, as I argue in Christianity and Secularism, it would be impossible to have no religion. Religions have to be judged individually on their own merits. Dawkins’ approach is the equivalent of arguing for the rejection investigation in favor of blind faith by lumping legitimate sciences like chemistry in with alchemy and then pointing to the problems of alchemy as a reason to reject chemistry. For Dawkins, the problems of one religion are reasons to reject all religions.
Of the remaining four items in Dawkins’ list that do not involve Islam: witch-hunts, the Gunpowder plot, Northern Ireland, and corrupt televangelists I would argue that only the first two can really be attributed to Christianity, which brings us to Dawkins’ third major error, which confuses things that involve religion with things that are caused by religion. The conflict between England and Ireland goes back much farther than the England’s change to Protestantism. In fact, this conflict is much more a cause of the religious difference, than caused by religion. As for the corrupt televangelists, con-artists can be found in most areas. That some us science to fleece people, is not a reason to reject science, why should it be any different for religion.
As for the remaining two, these are legitimate objections. (though the Gunpowder plot failed and thus had little actual impact beyond those who planned the plot, I take it to represent the religious conflict that did exist at the time). Whereas Dawkins errs by only looking at the negative it would be equally erroneous to only consider the positive. Like most everything else that involves people there are pros and cons to religion in general and Christianity in particular. A balance approach requires us to look and both the pros and the cons. As I argue in Christianity and Secularism, when this is done for Christianity, I believe that Christianity has had a strong net positive influence in the world.
Iraq War – Should we Leave? Part I
In the previous posts I have looked back at the question of should we have gone to war in Iraq, and despite the fact that large stockpiles of WMDs were not found, on balance the reasons for going to war are still valid. But whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, the fact remains that we are there. As such the more pressing question of the moment is should we leave? First I will look at some of the reason given why we should leave.
For many this is an easy question to answer. Because Bush lied we went to war on false grounds, therefore we should leave. But such a simplistic (and false) analysis hardly counts as rational argument. Even if true, that we went in on false ground does not automatically lead to the conclusion we should get out for one could just as easy argue we broke it, now it our job to fix it. Whether we were or were not correct to invade, the terrorists have since declared the conflict to be “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” and “the decisive battle.” Any decision to leave has to take into consideration not only why we entered, but more importantly what will happen if we leave.
Others point to the large number of those killed which is 3511 as of this writing, and claims that Iraq is not worth another American life. While slightly better than the previous argument, this argument fails to put this number in perspective. The costs in deaths must be compared with the threat we face, and the threat we face is determined by the goals of the enemy combined with their ability to carry them out. The goals of the enemy are pretty clear. They believe they are on a mission from God to kill or convert unbelievers. As for their ability to carry out their goals, numerous terrorist attacks, both before, including and after 9/11 has demonstrated their ability and desire to kill thousands. If left unchallenged, their ability to kill large number would only grow and unless stopped, it is not a matter of if they will someday get nuclear weapon, but when; and when they get them, they will use them. This is why many see the threat of terrorism as “The greatest threat since WWII.” But while the threats are comparable, particularly if the terrorist get nuclear weapons, the US casualties in WWII were over 400,000. In fact if we had quit WWII after reaching the casualties we have had in the war of Terror, WWII would have only lasted a few days before we threw in the towel as being too costly. On the other hand, in the current war, if the terrorist are able to detonate a few well places nuclear bombs, we would quickly exceed the casualties of WWII.
Others claim we should leave because of the mistakes that have been made. One of the things about war, however, is that it is not a static endeavor, and actions do not occur in a vacuum. Like it or not, the enemy gets to respond and there is a reason for the saying “No battle plan survives the first shot.” The early part of the civil war was marked by numerous mistakes by the Union Army, and it took years for Lincoln to find a good general. Mistakes abound in all war. Operation Torch the opening of the war in Europe during WWII was also marked by miscalculation. The battle of Armhem, chronicled in the movie a “A Bridge Too Far” was a huge debacle. That there were mistakes is a good reason to do better, but not to leave.
Similarly irrational is the argument that because we have gone of the war in Iraq there is more terrorism in the world. One problem with such arguments is that there were many terrorist acts before the invasion of Iraq, including 9/11. In addition the ability of the terrorist to carry out large attacks was growing. Are we really supposed to believe that had we not invaded Iraq, the Terrorist would have gone away? But an even worse problem, is the fact that whenever you fight back of course there will be more conflict than if you do nothing. When we entered WWII there was more conflict after we entered than before we entered.
A possible difference in this war is the claim that our very being in Iraq is enflaming the Muslim world, leading more people to become terrorist. This may very well be the case, but it goes to the heart of the larger problem we face. As mentioned before, for decades despotic rulers, and radical cleric throughout the Islamic world have blamed the US and Israel for pretty much every problem Muslims face. We were blamed before 9/11, we blamed for going into Afghanistan, and blamed now for going into Iraq. After all in a poll of public opinion in six Islamic countries a few months after 9/11 showed that only 18% believed that the 11 hijackers were Arab men, and only 9% believed that the US was correct to go into Afghanistan.
This is one of the main reason I always saw the war in Iraq as a big risk, with a significant chance that it could grow into a much larger war. For the moment, while things are certainly difficult in Iraq, the chance of this growing into a larger war seem small. But it remains a danger. However the best solution would be to achieve victory in Iraq such that we can leave the country with a stable democratic government that can defend itself. More next time.
Of Gods and Gaps
June 15, 2007, Wausau, Wi— Many skeptics see religion as little more than how people tried to make sense of the mysterious world around them, before the emergence of modern science. Lightening was seen coming down from the clouds so there must be something in the clouds throwing it down, and this something powerful enough to cast down lightening must be a god.
With the emergence of modern science and the understanding of nature that we have gained as a result, the need for religion has diminished. So now we have a much better understanding of the physical basis of lightening and thus no longer need the lightening god to explain it. With each advancement of science, the need for religion has diminished. Or at least so the argument goes.
Skeptics now tend to write off every claim that God has not been excluded by claiming it is nothing more than a God-of-the-Gaps argument. God is only invoked to explain those areas where there is a gap in our scientific knowledge.
Now there is no doubt that the God-of-the-gaps charge is at times accurate. But even so, that does not make it always accurate, nor does it mean that atheistic charge does not have problems of its own.
One of the problems is the skeptics view of religion that sees it as little more than an explanation for nature to be supplanted later by science. Most religions, and in particular Christianity, are much, much more than just an explanation for nature. In fact for Christianity, explaining nature is at best just a backdrop to the primary focus which is our relationship to God. Christianity does maintain that God created the universe and everything in it, but it also believes in a creation governed by reason. In fact much of modern science came out the desire to understand the creator by studying the creation, in the same way you would study a painter by studying their paintings.
But a more serious problem is that while Christians are sometimes guilty of gap arguments, not all arguments pointing to the problems of science are gap arguments. The problems with gap argument is that they are based on the absence of evidence, and thus commits the fallacy of an argument from ignorance, we do not know, therefore it must be God.
However, if instead of pointing to an absence of evidence, an argument points to the evidence against, it is no longer a gaps argument. For example, if one looks at the evidence for the origin of the universe, it clearly points to a beginning. There are two main competing scientific theories for how this took place both of which cannot explain how the whole process could started on in first place. An objective look at the evidence says that the universe had a beginning. Either the universe created itself, (and absurd idea) or there was some other creator. This is not a gaps argument because it is simply going where the evidence points.
Much the same can be said for the origin of life where the more it is examined, the more impossible it seems to get. Again this not a gap argument because is not grounded on the lack of an explanation, but on the evidence that it is impossible.
In fact, in both of these areas, if anyone has a gap type argument, it is the atheist. But rather filling the gap with appeals to God, they appeal to chance. Whereas Christians believe that God can do anything, atheist believe that chance can do anything if given enough time. This chance-of-the-gaps type argument takes many forms. For life, the belief is that regardless of how impossible the evidences says the origin of life would be, there is always a small chance, however tiny, that it could have happened so it is not completely impossible. But arguing something is not completely impossible is not quite the same as arguing that is happened.
One popular incarnation of this chance argument is to postulate an infinite number of universes and then claim that we just happen to be in the universe where all these seemingly impossible things did actually happen by chance.
What is often overlooked by atheists and agnostics in all these appeals to chance, is that by their very nature, these arguments run contrary to the evidence. After all, if the evidence clearly supported natural processes, there would be not be any need to appeal to chance. For example, one does not need to appeal to an infinite number of universes to explain the possibility of lightening.
When dealing with the unknown, one can either go where the evidence currently points, or try to explain away the evidence so as to maintain current beliefs. For both the origin of the universe and life, the evidence is currently against it being completely natural. Attempting to explain this away so and to maintain a worldview that precludes the existence of God and the supernatural, is putting faith in the worldview above evidence and reason, and in doing so theses skeptics are guilty of exactly what they accuse Christians of doing. Claiming that unknowns can be explained by chance is a chance-of-the-gaps reasoning. It is placing one’s faith in chance ahead of the evidence.
Iraq War – Should we have gone? Part III
In the last two parts I looked at the WMDs and humanitarian reasons for going to War. While, when put into context, I believe these justified going to war, I do not believe that these were the most important reasons. The most important reason for the removal of Saddam was not only a valid strategic goal in the war on terrorism, it was a necessary step. I do not believe that the war on terrorism could ever be won as long as Saddam was in power. Iraq’s strategic importance is also one of the main reasons the securing of the peace following the downfall of Saddam has been so difficult.
While there is little evidence to say that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and I never believe he was, there is no question that Saddam supported terrorists, including paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. In addition Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East.
To really deal with the threat of Terrorism, we must not only take on the terrorists, but we must also deal with the situation that is creating them. For decades US policy towards the Middle East has basically been that we did not care what the dictators did in their own countries, as long as the oil continued to flow. The result has been the creation of circumstances were these despotic rules along with radical clerics have explained away the problems in their own countries by blaming the US and Israel. In fact in a recent Zogby poll of opinion in six Middle Eastern countries, 80% had an unfavorable view of the United States, (57% very unfavorable), 72% said the US was one of the biggest threats to them (80% included Israel), and 69% said the true goal of US policy was “weakening the Muslim world.” Critics will probably say this is all because of Bush, but this is not new. One only has to go back to the year 2000, before Bush was even elected, to see hundreds of thousands marching in Morocco burning US and Israeli flags. And of course terrorism has been a growing problem for decades.
On 9/11 the state supporters of terrorism were: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan. To really solve the problem all would need to stop their support. Unless we were to take them on all at once (a policy no one I know of supports) they would have to be dealt with in sequence. While not on the list Afghanistan was a logical first place to start, as it was the home of Al Qaida, and few except those who are opposed to all wars agreed. For those who see the terrorism as a law enforcement issue Afghanistan should have been the end of it, at least until the next attack. And with the other countries still supporting terrorism, there would have been another attack.
For those who see this as a war, the main question is where to go next. I would argue that Iraq was the next logical step. It had been a very visible antagonist for nearly a decade, it was in violation of the peace treaty, it was firing on US aircraft virtually on a daily basis, it was a major abuser of human rights, and was in violation of 16 UN resolution, in addition to supporting terrorism. More importantly a successful transformation of Iraq, would put pressure on others with the hope that military action would not be necessary. For example, it has long been reported that the Iranian people are unhappy with their government, and Iran is ripe for revolution.
For awhile it looked like this policy was working. Following the invasion of Iraq, Libya did renounce terrorism, give up its WMD programs and took steps to rejoin the world community, though this had been in the works for some time. There were even some positive signs in Syria as it was forced out of Lebanon. Iran and Syria, could see what was happening and have actively responded by supporting opposition to the US. The terrorists also see key importance of a US victory in Iraq, and describe the conflict as “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” and “the decisive battle.” How can Iraq be unimportant to the war on terror, if the terrorist see it in these terms?
Yet critics claim invading Iraq was unnecessary, it was an optional war, a war of choice. Because of their law enforcement viewpoint, they wrongly see this as a choice between war and peace. But we are at war. The terrorists are not fighting us because we invaded Iraq, they declared war on us long before Iraq, and have been fighting us for decades, and they will continue to do so. There are only two ways wars can end. Either both side mutually agree to stop, or one side defeats the other. The terrorist show no signs of stopping, they see themselves as on a mission from, and to stop would be to disobey God. So, unless we are willing to give up Western civilization and live under Islamic Law, it is not a question of whether or not we will fight, but a question of where and when. As long as there are state supporters of militant Islam, the threat posed by militant Islam will grow stronger. It is not a matter of if they will get WMDs, it is a matter of when. And make no mistake, when they get them, they will use them. Unfortunately many find the idea of fanatics who believe they are on a mission from God to kill or convert unbelievers getting nuclear weapons so unthinkable they do not want to face up to the real danger we face.
So it is not a choice between war and peace, but between war now, or an even larger bloodier war later; of stopping militant Islam before it gets WMDs (assuming it is not already too late to do this) or waiting until they have them and have used them. This was not only a good reason for going into to Iraq, it is just as valid now, if not more so. If we should not have fought them in Iraq then just where should we fight them? Or should we let them choose the battleground that is best for them?
