-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.
I heard that the dog pack doesn’t like wahabi, covers up the fish taste
Beginner’s Guide: ““There is nothing simple about this conflict, and there never has been. It can only be understood in nuance, and shades of grey.”
“Joe, I don’t do nuance.” –George W. Bush to Sen. Joseph Biden, as quoted in Time, Feb. 15, 2004
Apparently, neither does Joe’s partner
And I guess, Nal, that use of analogies is a nuanced affair as well
ST,
Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that. It’s really Suni versus Shia and both manipulated by and versus the Wahabists.
Just sayin’.
I found this link to have what seems to be a good backgrounder on what is happening in Syria.
A beginner’s guide to the conflict in (and country of) Syria.
http://thehowardbealeshow.tumblr.com/post/59787605249/a-beginners-guide-to-the-conflict-in-and-country-of
The text is extensive and is hyperlinked wall-to-wall. You could spend a weekend in there.
Snippets:
“First, remove all notions of a black vs. white, good vs. bad conflict out of your head. Both the anti-government rebels and the pro-government regime forces have been recorded perpetrating war crimes, doling out arbitrary punishments, and torturing and killing hundreds of innocent civilians at a time.”
“This is not a conflict that can be understood simply. It is by nature ethnic, sectarian, and bitter.”
“There is nothing simple about this conflict, and there never has been. It can only be understood in nuance, and shades of grey.”
.
Here is one link to background on some of the differing rebel groups. The writer considers that the extremist groups are dominant. Inflicting severe damage on Assad forces in a strike would effectively aid these groups.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/06/opinion/barfi-syria-opposition-guide
.
The ME situations seem to be all about Sunni v Shia. It’s very bitter and unlikely to be sorted out over a cup of tea.
US, Russia and China have competing self-serving interests.
Israel has an interest in getting the US to attack its neighbors
Saudi is stirring the pot.
They would be happy to contribute some billions if that would help to have the West lay waste to other ME countries.
RJ: “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.”
Worse than that — a reciprocal response to Assad’s use of chemicals is for the US to deploy chemicals against Assad’s forces, AND SUCH WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Both the United States and Syria are signatories of Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (“Geneva Protocol”), but the United States reserved the ability to use of chemical weapons in regards to any enemy state which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol.
Of course as a signatory of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (“Chemical Weapons Convention”), the US was to destroy all its stockpiles by April 2012, I guess it would have to go buy some. Who could sell them some gas?
Hey, Isreal isn’t a signatory! Speaking of Isreal, well, it’s not just about Syria
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=61172
“As always with the Netanyahu government, the issue of Iran looms large. Netanyahu and his colleagues evidently have calculated, probably accurately, that a US attack on Syria would serve their objectives of keeping the Iran issue boiling (and thus serving their further purposes of distracting international attention from issues directly involving Israel and precluding Iran ever becoming, in competition with Israel, a partner of the United States), diminishing the chance for a negotiated agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, and increasing the chance of a future US military attack on Iran.
“In addition to wanting a US attack on Syria that would provide ammunition to Iranian hardliners resisting agreement-facilitating concessions to the West, the Israeli government does not want a congressional outcome on Syria that would make it harder to push through in the future an authorization to use military force against Iran.”
Just sayin’
Correction: I really loath the Defense Department drumming the nation to war
Gene, that would be helping America, not Rummy
MM: “I really don’t trust the maniacs in the U.S. government when they start babbling about bombing.”
And I really loath using the Defense Department drumming the nation to — its job is to carry out the war, not create one.
If the State Department or non-military national security advisers can’t make the case for war, there isn’t one.
Of course, where’s the money in that?
Oro,
The only thing I’m willing to help Rummy do is go to his rightful and just but so far avoided prison cell. 😀
Gene, Rumsfield could have used your help with press conferences.
nick,
I was referring to the red line in editing but that’s okay … it was a loose analogy 😉 .
Yep, all kinds of investigations going on regarding Castro’s death.
You should have let me know you were driving through … we could have met for coffee and I could have asked your wife to autograph my book!
That’s exactly my point Gene. If you look at the wide ranging scope of what Obama wants to do, they players in the region, backers of the conflict, who the rebels are, etc. this will not likely be a limited strike, costing very little and be of no consequence.
In addition, civilians will certainly die.
There is no need to go to war. There are actual legal and peaceful methods which have a far better chance of resolving this issue. Even Obama says we need to use diplomacy in the end. So why not skip the killing and get on with what Obama says is the only thing that will work in Syria, diplomacy. It’s truly bizarre to suggest only diplomacy can resolve an issue then to choose war. The emperor wears no clothes.
MM & Sling
Thanks for the follow up and I agree with your sentiments. The UN Security Council is dysfunctional and does not operate as originally intended. One cannot look to the UNSC to “fix” anything (assuming something needs to be fixed). The issue is what to do, if anything, if the UNSC refuses to fix what obviously needs to be fixed. And who gets to do it? And how?
Jill,
One cannot predict the future, but one can forecast probable futures. That being said, both the size and quality of the initial data sets are critical as is methodology. Then there is always X to account for; some unpredicted and unknowable supervening factor that can radically change probable and possible outcomes. It’s part art, part science. However, not all forecasts are of equal value as a probative or predictive tool. See the work of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita as an example of extremely good geopolitical forecasting.
Scott, do you have pre-cognitive abilities? How do you know what will happen in the future when the US goes to war? We were told Iraq would pay for itself. Kerry tells us the Arab States will pay for this one, with a sliding scale. If we go all the way, they will pay for it all.
Obama wants regime change. He sent Congress and authorization to allow him to make war on Syria’s allies in the region.
I do not believe “leaders” who want war are being realistic at all. I think they are likely to be very cynically in it for profit or some are indeed religious zealots. In Obama’s case, it may be so he won’t look bad in the world’s eye. None of those constitute realism.
Sorry, “putting for” should read “making.”
I’m against a war in Syria, but I’m also a realist who likes his logic consistent. So… First, the idea that another Libya type operation–without boots on the ground that only will cost about a billion–is anything like Iraq (which will wind up costing over $6 trillion by the time we pay the vet health care and interest on the borrowed money, and which killed, maimed, and displaced many millions) shows only that the person putting for the Syria/Iraq comparison has no sense of degree or proportion. The black and white world of Manichean Paranoia is best left to the neocons.
Second: “Assad sees those weapons as key to his survival. He’s unlikely to part with them.”
Doesn’t this depend on how many of them he has? If he gets desperate, and thinks his war is collapsing in on him, and he has a lot of these weapons, then he might see that it’s not possible for him to ever use all of them, and would then think that parting with some of them would be a way to have his friends in Hezbollah help him wreak more havoc and death upon the people he’s fighting, a kind of last ditch effort to make sure he doesn’t leave any ammo in the weapon, so to speak. In this sense, it’s logical to assume that any strike on our part would lead to the kind of desperation on his part that would instigate his giving of these weapons to them.
I can remember when President Clinton aimed some cruise missiles at Afghanistan and hit Pakistan. I can also remember when President Clinton sent some bombers to liberate Kosovo, only they bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, instead. I really don’t trust the maniacs in the U.S. government when they start babbling about bombing. I always imagine the terror that foreigners planning a wedding, funeral, or baby-naming ceremony must feel when they learn of the “surgical strikes” that America has headed their way because President Obama stuck both feet in his own mouth and fears that President Clinton and Mad Dog John McCain will call him a pussy if he doesn’t kill some Muslims before someone else does.
“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”
Just like the US using its veto on a number of issues
Here’s a short sample:
Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties’ exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic “Zone of Peace”.
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
Love that last one!
If the US had signed up for that, a few POTUSs would be on trial.
.
Later vetos in
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/102/40069.html
There is not a credible international get together which can agree on the price of soap much less things like genocide. I do not believe that we are “exemplary” and can tell other territories to stop killing each other. We lost that status sometime after the Nuremberg trials and now we are producing folks who deserve to be defendants for human rights abuses: Cheney, Bushie, et al. So who are the et al? And how do we get there with the German people of 1944 era?
Tell your Congressman/woman to vote no.
Send Obama the message we sent to Nixon on bumper stickers:
Obama: Pull Out Not Like Your Father Should Have.