-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Arguments by analogy are used to justify a controversial claim by invoking a similar claim in a less controversial instance. While not deductively valid, a good analogy can provide a strong reason to accept the claim. In an effort to drum up support for a military strike on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar Assad “now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war.” Other war drum beaters are warning about the “lessons of Munich” and Obama looking like Neville Chamberlain. When the analogy is tenuous, the argument becomes ludicrous.
Such is the case when Assad is compared to Hitler. It is unclear if Assad can even sustain his power in Syria, let alone militarily threaten any neighbors. Assad’s military is unable to overcome a ragtag gang of Islamists, so any comparison to Hitler is absurd.
The Hitler analogy was used by President George W. Bush to justify his war with Iraq, and President Bill Clinton to justify his decision to bomb Serbia. Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was fond of telling reporters that “Munich is my mindset.” It’s déjà vu all over again.
Kerry’s comparison of Assad to Saddam Hussein just reminds the listener that President Ronald Reagan, with prior knowledge of Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, provided Hussein with satellite imagery to enable the targeting of Iranian forces.
During a stopover in Sweden, President Obama tried to move his “red line” comment when he said: “The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons was abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.” Obama added that his credibility is not on the line, but “The international community’s credibility is on the line.” If it’s the world’s red line and the world’s credibility at stake, then the world should decide what to do.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel tried to put forward a “national security” argument:
If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which has forces in Syria supporting the Assad regime, could acquire them. This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners, and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.
This argument makes little sense. Why would Assad’s willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people indicate a willingness to give those weapons to Hezbollah? Assad sees those weapons as key to his survival. He’s unlikely to part with them. A US strike could increase that risk if Assad decided to give Hezbollah chemical weapons in an act of retaliation. If Assad falls, those chemical weapons could easily fall into the hands of the rebel group Al-Nusra, who has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.
H/T: John Casey, Michael Hirsh, The Guardian, Jonathan Chait, Scott Lemieux, John Dickerson.
Oro Lee,
As you know, the United States helped to found the United Nations with the express goal of preventing aggressive wars between nations. Yet now that the United Nations seems determined to do its job and prevent an aggressive war initiated by the United States against Syria, the United States complains of U.N. “paralysis.” What self-serving claptrap.
I sure hope that the U.N. can save America from its own President by steadfastly telling him “no.”
“If that is the case, then I think Pres. Obama is correct in trying to destroy those weapons.”
That’s the problem. The object of the exercise is said to be to punish Assad for using CW as to dissuade him from using them again.
There is no plan to destroy the weapons.
The plan is said to be to hit about 50 targets with about 100 cruise missiles. That’s average 2 missiles per target. I have heard that the target list is being expanded.
This might mean hitting a landmark or two and the command centers of army units thought to have been involved in using the weapons.
They can’t hit the CW weapons stores if there are civilians downwind.
In any case, the missiles don’t carry a huge explosive payload. They are not “bunker-busters”.
Cruise missiles are only good for hitting buildings or people who don’t move around the place.
The missiles cost US$700,000 plus each.
Maybe a 100-missile strike will cost about US$100Million.
The result would be some damaged buildings.
Any such strike would really be just a slap on the wrist.
Assad has his back to the wall. If he’s faced with imminent defeat, he will use them no matter what. It’s sh*t or bust for him.
.
What if the cruise misiles somehow managed to damage Assad’s miliatry forces?
That would aid the rebels to defeat him.
Assad might be the “bad guy” but this not make the rebels the “good guys”. Some (at least) are as savage as Assad.
Now you have chaos, with about 1000+ different groups competing for advantage – with some of them getting their hands on CW. Some of these groups are mortal enemies to each other.
That would imply that boots on the ground would be used to secure CW stores. Oh look. Iraq/Afghanistan again.
.
How about sending aircraft in – to attempt to pulverize mobile units and airfields? This would also have to mean trying to hit at least the major extremist rebel groups at the same time.
Syria is reputed to have a very deadly anti-aircraft capability. The latest addition to that has been the first shipments of Russian S-300 missiles that took place before deliveries were suspended because of payment issues.
US aircraft shot dowm. Rescue missions shot down. Oh look. Boots on the ground.
The place is a swamp that will suck more and more boots onto the ground. It would spread beyond Syria.
A simplistic explanation for a strike is that Obama/US need to show the world ( and incidentally Iran ) that they have a big penis.
A more realistic explanation is that the lunatics pimping war with Iran are using “dead children” as an excuse to provoke action.
.
The thing that I find most sickening about the debates are the lines that the US has some sort of moral authority and “can not abide” the use of CW.
Who kills civilian adults and children in drone strikes?
Who has scattered depleted uranium around the war zones of the ME – resulting in a rash of birth defects and illness?
How many children died as a result of the Iraq invasion? – which invasion was planned long before 9/11 and was ‘justified’ with completely falsified intelligence?
Who napalmed children in Vietnam?
Who dropped nukes on cities?
Who abducted and tortured people – with the majority of them being innocent? Why is the sole person prosecuted in connection with the CIA torture program the one who revealed the name of one of the agents?
Who sells cluster munitions – that have been banned by 80+ nations because of the deaths of civilians?
Who stands by without objection while Israel commits atrocities?
Who has destibalized goverments and supported dictators in their place?
.
The Syria thing is not about gassed children.
It’s the same old US oil and empire story.
We heard all about that “Munich” analogy back in Southeast Asia many decades ago. As “The Best and the Brightest” told us: If the world — meaning the United States — didn’t “do something” (never mind what), then the dominoes would fall on everyone and America would die. What a royal crock of shit then. What a royal crock of shit now.
President Obama wants to commit a war crime but fears to do so alone. So he wants to implicate the Congress and — through them — the American people as accessories to his contemplated crime. The rest of the world has pretty much bailed out on him and his asinine analogies, but he persists in repeating them anyway. He has begun to reek of desperation, as anyone can tell by the pathetic “Hitler” references. When you have to stoop to that crusty canard, you’ve already lost.
UN Security Council action requires the unanimous consent of those voting, and to believe such will happen with Russia or China at the table is an uncommonly stupid dream
Yes Michael, I will take the history lesson.
How is it that every new Hitler we now seek to depose was once our warmest friend just a while ago? What changed? Assad was one of the go-to guys for extraordinary rendition and torture. Kerry and his wife had dinner with the Assads in 09. Kerry talked of his warm regard for Assad.
Was Assad Hitler in 09? Did the Hitler fairy come and wand him to make him Hitler in 11? That fairy has been very busy of late in the Middle East!!!
Help the barbarians that were on the front page of the N.Y. Times? great idea
Would someone please pull my comment back? Thank you.
Instead of asinine analogies and mangled mixed metaphors, how about a little straightforward history of American military interventions over the past seventy years? From A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present (2005), by Howard Zinn:
Judged strictly on the historical merits, yet another American military bungle abroad can do nothing but destroy another foreign nation, economy, society, and culture, while driving the American population further down into poverty and ignorance. I realize that from the Corporate Oligarchy’s point of view, this prospect probably represents “success,” but I’ve grown so tired of hearing President Obama and his predecessors trying to sell us a fabulous Hollywood narrative of martial valor and moral purity though cowardly “limited” bombing from above and outside harm’s way.
MM While Zinn is good on some things, he outright lies and shades the truth on much of his work. Vietnam is NOT a small country and in fact is about the size of Germany.in population and in area. The US was not defeated in Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Then to compare Syria to Vietnam is absurd since Obama is NOT asking for hundreds of thousands of troops as was done by Bush. Too bad you also forget about Libya and you must explain why we are not at war there if such action MUST LEAD to war.
When you don’t have a case you obfuscate! Here are some real ideas:
“As YES Magazine’s Sarah Van Gelder explains, those campaigning against intervention have suggested various non-military options for a U.S. role in Syria that would allow for decreasing the level of violence in the country.
In abbreviated form, those options described by Van Gelder include:
1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice. With the backing of the U.N. Security Council, those responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and other war crimes should be brought to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for justice, whether they are part of the Syrian regime or members of opposition forces.
2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces. Stopping the flow of weapons from around the world into Syria is another important step toward peace. But it will involve complex diplomacy that has not yet been attempted.
3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conference involving not only the Syrian government and opposition parties, but their backers from outside the country and those affected by the flow of refugees and arms.
4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria, or, at least, don’t undermine them. A resurgence in Syria’s broad-based nonviolent movement for change that started in March 2011 is still a source of hope, according to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco.
5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people. Humanitarian organizations are currently able to provide services within Syria only with great difficulty; the United Nations Security Council should insist that Damascus allow them access.
(find at Common Dreams)
The idea of peaceful measures and using the ICC is funny. The reason Assad is using poison gas is that it works. It causes mass casualties in hard to get at areas, with minimal cost to his forces. There will be no need for any “peace” conference because the rebels will be dead or dispersed. The civil war will come to an end with Assad’s victory and even more dead. Then the question will arise, how many dead will it take before the outrage builds to such a level to demand action? Then it will be too late, and any military actions will be too little too late, and there will be no war crimes trials of the guilty. Then the fact will be that the international community will be shown to be tolerant of the use of poison gas in future conflicts and that their use is de facto approved.
I have in mind the long history of arms embargos which have in the main NEVER worked. For example, the Spanish Civil War in which the western embargo only helped Franco and ensured the defeat of the Republican forces. Then we have the arms embargo in 1948 when Israel declared its independence, which was only enforced against the Arabs. Stalin gave lots of arms to Israel through Czechoslovakia which allowed the Israelis to win.
Blouise, Redlining is illegal. Drove through The Cleve on Wednesday. As we approached Cleveland I got a call from our daughter. She knew we were driving through The Cleve and wanted to tell us the news. However, she simply blurted out, “Castro hung himself.” I started talking about the political implications for Cuba and she said, “No..the other Castro.”
Argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. In weak analogies, the differences between the two objects or characteristics compared have to be ignored. (too many sources to list)
I run into this weak analogy thing every time one of my friends tries to use the following analogy in the gun ownership debate. They want to treat gun ownership in the same manner as driving … i.e. requiring a state issued license. This ignores the fact that driving is an action performed with a car, whereas purchasing a gun is not an act performed with a gun. There is a qualitative difference between the act of driving and the act of purchasing a gun that has to be ignored making the analogy of driver’s license to gun owner’s license weak. I have to keep pointing out that said analogy, in order to be strong, must require that gun licenses be based on the action of shooting as driver’s licenses are based on the action of driving.
Weak analogies invite ridicule thus undermining one’s position in the debate. Thus far President Obama’s team appears to be floundering in a high school sophomore debate class. Talk about getting redlined …
Jill I hope this one gets through since all my posts responding to you vanish. The fact is that there are lies being told by those who are opposed to any military action under any circumstances. First off, Obama is NOT promoting war since we are NOT at war in Libya where Obama used similar force for longer times and more extensively. Then the lie that we do not know whether or not Assad used chemical weapons. All indications I have read and logic shows that to be the FACT. Then we have the excuse that since Reagan did nothing in Iraq, means we should do nothing now. This is also combined with blaming Obama for the crime of Reagan’s inaction. All of these points are even worse than the Hitler analogy which Kerry did NOT use. All his point was that Assad has now joined Hitler, Hussein in a rather exclusive club which I hope we all deplore. Then we have Kerry being accused of using Albrights words. I guess that any mendacity is justified in a good cause for most of you who are opposed.
Now if Kerry had done as Albright did an cite Munich, THEN you would be correct that he was using a Hitler analogy in the sense the posters here have tried to distort his words to mean. The main point is that if WE do not use a military response, there will be further mass murders using poison gas. It is quite clear that this will endanger us and our allies since Syria’s neighbors which we have alliances with, will be hit with such weapons as Turkey already has been attacked with conventional weapons. Syria will undoubtedly use more gas since it affords Assad a great weapon which is very effective in his situation. They will also have to go after the refugee camps in other countries since they are used as bases for the rebels, and with no military response, Assad knows he can get away with it. As long as he only hits his refugees and not Turks or other nationals, he is good to go.
“Obama added that his credibility is not on the line, but “The international community’s credibility is on the line.” If it’s the world’s red line and the world’s credibility at stake, then the world should decide what to do.” – Nal
Obama is allergic to the UN, “the world”, just like Bush II was.
Their invocation of the actions of the world, then their subsequent dismissal of what the world thinks is disingenuous.
I’m going w/ the great political philosopher, Pelosi, on this one. Not Nancy, her grandson.
When President Obama says “the world,” I hear him say “my administration.” As the Republican hired-gun word-magician Frank Luntz explains: “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.”
President Obama emits streams of word-like noises from between his moving lips, but he does not seem at all attuned to what the people of the world hear him say. He says “kinetic action,” and the people hear “war.” He says “militant” and the people hear “murdered 16-year-old American boy.”
The American people have begun catching up to the the rest of the world which looks at what President Obama does while dismissing as meaningless his mind-numbing, jargon-laden diatribes. In fact, for the most part, people the world over have simply stopped listening. And the more empty noises he insists on directing at them, trying to sell them on what they’ve already said they won’t buy, the more irritated they become. President Obama needs to stop flogging flawed figures of speech and listen to this one simple question:
“What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?”
Yes it is speculation. Here’s the EU lackey of the US: “…EU foreign chief Catherine Ashton says strong response is essential to make clear there is no impunity… “says it was probably carried out by the Syrian government.”
Evidently the world cannot tolerate getting actual evidence to see who used the weapons. Evidently, the world cannot imagine using a peaceful method such as the ICC and talks in Geneva as a way to respond.
These people want war and they will do anything, say anything to get it.
How about comparing Obama’s administration’s Syria efforts with George W.’s run up to war in Iraq — still tenuous?
Oh, wait — you’ve done some of that already: “The Hitler analogy was used by President George W. Bush to justify his war with Iraq,”
Better to be DAMNED for what was not done(by anyone else either?) than to help our blatantly and actively inhuman, faith based atrocity committing, terrorist fleas.
Thanks for a very interesting summary of Administration arguments.
Nal:
good post. And I think you are right, the comparisons to Hitler and Munich are fabrications of little minds but we dont know half the stuff that is going on.
I have read that Saddam sent his chemical and biological weapons to Syria before we invaded. So maybe this is an excuse to get rid of them before Al Qeada gets them.
If that is the case, then I think Pres. Obama is correct in trying to destroy those weapons. I think the American people need to be told the truth for once so we can make up our own minds.
At this point it is all speculation.