Flypaper Strategy
[This is] the stark choice America faces in November. Do we keep the coach who is playing offense in the War on Terror, taking the battle to where the enemy lives and breeds, smashing their stronghold in Afghanistan, setting a trap for them in Iraq, and confronting Islamist terrorists by planting that which they loathe the most – freedom and democracy for Muslims – in the heart of their territory. Or do we hire a new coach who will switch to defense and focus on preparing the firefighters and police and “first responders’ to douse the flames and dig the bodies from under the rubble of the next attack?
I like it.
March 17th, 2004 at 8:03 am
do ye rilly bleeve thems thonly two choices? tiz a false dilemma, one of the oldest n mos reconized fallacies they is. tiz defined thusly lack: “A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning.”
the quote on the fallacy cums frum this site: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#top
thays uther choices. fer a verr simple eggzample, i wood lack a presdint who wooda kep after the taliban n al queda n osama till they had ackshly smokd em outta thar hidey holes. whut happend to gittin osama, daid or alive, lack twuz promissed jes after 9/11?
so a nuther opshun is how i wood lack a presdint that woodnt wait to git real busy on the catchin of osama till 2.5 years after he had attacked.
in uther wurds, i wont a coach that wonts to drive to the endzone of the real game ruther than quit to go play a easier game on a nuther field.
or i wont a coach that dont bleev in borryin n spendin to bild a bigger n bigger centrull gummint till we gut deficits of half a trillyun dollars.
the opshuns is almos endless, witch is why tiz such a fallacy.
March 17th, 2004 at 8:45 am
In general, you are correct that there are other choices. However, we happen to be discussing the Presidential election. Like it or not, it’s almost certain that either Bush or Kerry will be elected. The question is, then, which of these two would you prefer (even if you don’t like either of them very well).
And I throw your “fallacy” right back in your face: why does invading Iraq mean we gave up on Osama? Why do you think we weren’t doing both? I happen to know someone who was deployed to Afghanistan last year. I wonder if HE thinks we gave up on the hunt for Osama?
And a Happy St. Patricks Day to you.
March 17th, 2004 at 11:20 am
And I throw your “fallacy” right back in your face: why does invading Iraq mean we gave up on Osama?
Well, we reduced our total presence in Afghanistan to fewer than 9,000 troops, in part to support the Iraq war. Nowhere near enough to prevent the Taliban and al-Qaeda from regrouping in Afghanistan.
Hobbs can drivel all he wants about our “coach” being “on the offensive,” but staying with a football analogy, he’s preparing the team to play Vanderbilt when the opponent is actually Florida.
Flypaper my ass. Rather than trying to attacking someplace and trying to attract the terrorists there, how about actually attacking where the terrorists are?
The other piece of the argument you miss is that Bush is using conventional military tactics against a highly unconventional opponent. “Al-Qaeda” is not the same as, say, “Czechoslovakia.” The latter is a discrete state, easily identifiable. The former is a much more diverse, elusive group.
The strategy you’re essentially advocating is akin to invading Montana to do away with all separatist militias. (Except that there actually are separatist militias in Montana, whereas there wasn’t any significant al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to our invasion.)
March 17th, 2004 at 11:33 am
That flypaper thing is so morally disgusting anyway. Lets tel the world that we don’t care how many of their children we kill, just so long as we can kill one or two terrorists in the process. Yeah, thats not going to help the terrorists support at all.
And ask the people of Madrid or Bali or Istanbul how well that strategy has worked for them — or don’t the lives of our allies mean anything to you mighty war bloggers?
And thats the difference between Kerry and Bush — Kerry wants to fight the war smartly, Bush wants to fight it stupidly.
March 17th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
Looks to me like the flypaper is working.
March 17th, 2004 at 12:21 pm
Thibodeaux:
WTF? Tell that to the Spanish. I thought the flypaper idea was to attract the terrorists to Iraq, not to attract them to our staunchest allies.
I’m sorry, but your statement that the flypaper “seems to be working” is downright insulting, offensive, and blind (possibly willfully so). Not to mention incorrect. Even Uncle recognizes this:
March 17th, 2004 at 12:38 pm
I’m sorry, but your statement that the flypaper “seems to be working” is downright insulting, offensive, and blind (possibly willfully so). Not to mention incorrect
Check your premises.
March 17th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
ye flung the fallacy back at my face, sir, but ye dun missd. heres why: hobbs idee wuz that we wood be replacin a offensive coach fer a defensive one. why couldnt we git a hed coach lack pat summit who knows that offense wins games n defense wins champeenships? ye caint have a good team without both of em.
thars also the fack that the deescripshuns of kerry n bush hobbs used wuz overly simplistick. eethur of em could change whut thar a’doin, assumin they bof kin larn n change on the basis of whut they larn (tho it duz seem to me lack mr bush is overly concernt with keepin his hobgoblin of consistency well fed). as fer kerry, whut hes been sayin is that we half to do bof — attack n defend.
kerry aims to coach the way pat summit duz. mr bush dont seem all that innerested in bof ends of the field. we dont need the presidentchul vershun of a designated hitter.
finely, the game wuz agin osama n al qaeda. ye dont beat one team by attackin a nuthern, even if they are easier to beat.
March 17th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
Bah…don’t talk to me about Pat Summit. I don’t know what she teaches her players in practice, but on the floor I can see that their idea of defense is to hand-check and hack, and then pitch a big hissy fit whenever the ref blows the whistle.
March 17th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
Thibodeaux:
OK, spell it out for me, then. In what way exactly is the flypaper “working?” It seems that all it may have accomplished is made Iraq more dangerous and more open to terrorism, while simultaneously doing nothing to make the rest of the world any safer.
Please do enlighten me on which of my premises is flawed.
March 17th, 2004 at 9:28 pm
Please do enlighten me on which of my premises is flawed.
That the flypaper I’m referring to is Iraq. It’s not; it’s this comment thread.
As for whether or not we had sufficient force in Afghanistan to do the job, I can’t say. I don’t have the qualifications. I believe that LT SMASH does, though. He seems to think we’re going all right.
March 18th, 2004 at 6:48 am
Thibodeaux:
That the flypaper I’m referring to is Iraq. It’s not; it’s this comment thread.
Ah, subtle humor. Wasn’t expecting that from you. 😉 Apologies.
March 18th, 2004 at 8:37 am
Gee, thanks.