The Faulty Logic of War

Discuss this on our boards!

The Faulty Logic of War
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

September 18, 2002

"Leaning Left"

James Hall I don't like being stampeded into war, and that's what it seems like's happening now. In the past month Iraq has somehow gotten a whole lot more dangerous than it was before. I've been waiting for the administration to tell us exactly what that new danger was, but have been fed a bunch of illogical and inconsistent arguments instead.

This argument, for example: 1. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. 2. Saddam Hussein supports terrorist organizations. Therefore, Saddam supports al-Qaeda. My professor would have thrown me out of Logic 101 if I'd tried to peddle that argument there. The argument conflates all terrorist organizations into one, when there are huge differences between them. The CIA and even Condolleeza Rice have admitted that Saddam Hussein was probably not aware of or involved in 9/11.

Another version of the same illogical argument is that since we are at war with terror organizations and Saddam Hussein supports terror organizations, we should therefore be a war with Saddam. Again, there's no logical reason to single-out Iraq or Saddam Hussein for action here. One could make the same argument against declared enemies like Iran and North Korea, and declared allies like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and a dozen other nations, all of whom support "terrorist organizations" of some kind. (The problem being that one nation's "terrorist" is often another nation's "freedom fighter.")

Another argument, more sound bite than argument, is Condoleezza Rice's statement last weekend in response to those asking for proof, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Logically this statement couldn't beat its way out of a paper bag --- it assumes (nuclear risk) what it sets out to prove.

Dr. Rice's statement is based on report by a London think tank that suggests that Iraq could put together a nuclear bomb in six months --- if it had the fissionable plutonium available to do it. That's a huge if when you consider that Israel destroyed Iraq's capability to produce plutonium over a decade ago, and bigger when you consider that plutonium remains the most tightly regulated substance in the world. The fact is that Iraq has had this capability for a long time, but expertise is useless without the plutonium to make it happen.

Another consideration is the breakneck speed at which the Bush administration has been moving since early September. President Bush has called for the UN to support military action immediately and Congress to give him immediate authority to take action. Yet where was this concern for speed a month earlier, when Mr. Bush spent the time on vacation at Crawford, except for a few side trips to raise money for Congressional campaigns. What's changed in the last month, besides his falling job approval numbers?

Finally, the most suspect argument of all: If Saddam obtains nuclear weapons, he will use them. That argument is based on Saddam's use of poison gas on rebelling Iraqi Kurds in 1988. However, Saddam had many opportunities to use poison gas and biological agents on the Coalition forces and Israel during the Gulf War and did not do so. UN arms inspectors later found warheads capable of delivering these weapons that could have been used by Iraq --- but weren't.

Everything about Saddam Hussein points to a man who wants to increase his personal power and influence. Saddam's principal cause is Saddam, not suicide. When he used gas on the Kurds in 1988, it was with impunity, knowing there was no one who would retaliate against him. When he failed to use it on Coalition forces and Israel two years later, it was because he knew he had no impunity. Saddam wants a nuclear bomb for the power and prestige it grants, not as a ride to death and glory like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove.

There may yet be good reasons to go to war with Iraq, but we haven't seen them. ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files