Response to "It's better to be fighting the terrorists over there" argument
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: September 12, 2004 - September 18, 2004 Archives
Gregg Easterbrook, in The New Republic, embraces this concept in a new article even today. "What if the invasion of Iraq is having the unintended consequence of drawing terrorists and killers to that country, where our army can fight them on our terms?," he asks.
The only thing complicated about this argument is calibrating a hierarchy of all the levels of foolishness it embodies. Logically it is nonsensical; strategically it is moronic; morally it is close to indefensible.
The key fallacy, as so many have pointed out, is the notion that there are a finite number of 'terrorists' who we can kill and be done with.
posted by joe at
4:54 PM
2 Comments:
There is a finite number of terrorists, as there were Nazis.
L-
By
Anonymous, at 5:06 PM
L,
In the mathematical sense of 'finite' you are indeed correct in saying that there are a finite number of terrorists. There are a finite number of people in the world. It is impossible for at least that reason for there to be a truly infinite number of terrorist. In the more ordinary sense, it is possible, granted omniscience, to count the number of terrorists (so long as the definition is clear) in the world at this moment.
However, the usage in this article is not exactly the precise mathematical definition, although it does have important things in common. There are at least two senses of 'finite.' The first describes sums at fixed points in time. The second describes sums *over* time. Terrorist are finite in the first sense. In the second sense we can't know right now whether the number of terrorists is finite or infinite. When we are successful we can know that the number is finite.
The fallacy of the "it's better to be fighting the terrorists over there" argument is that it assumes the qualities of the first sense *over* real time. In the first sense, so long as one stays within that one moment of time, one can decrease that finite number of terrorists by simply eliminating them. Take one down, pass 'im around, 99 islamic terr'rists on the wall. This is obviously not the case *over* time. Over time there are other factors besides the number of killed terrorists that are important in determining the number of terrorists at any moment in time.
Your own example can help demonstrate what I mean and that I'm not arguing against military action. I have no idea of actual numbers of Nazis. Let's just say they were 40 million Nazis in Germany before they invaded/annexed any other countries. Let's say there were another 1 million people in other European countries who shared the Nazi ideology so deeply that we can also call them Nazis. 41 million. Fast forward to the Nazis conquering France. This did not affect all French poorly (I'm using this term subjectively from their own points of view becuase I would argue that it was affecting everyone poorly in the objective sense.). Some people in France who previously did not share the Nazi ideology came to see it as beneficial for their self-interest and subsequently adopted it (Petain, being only the most famous example). This increased the total number of Nazis. Let's say, considering only France and Germany not the other invaded countries, the total number is now 45 million.
The thing to remember is that if France had not been conquered these people would never have adopted Nazi ideology. Likewise, if Germany had been appeased after the conquest of France and gone on to consolodate its power in Europe without being confronted by powers that could defeat them the number of Nazis, though still finite at moments, would have continued to increase indefinitely. The number of people who ever did adopt Nazism was determined in large part by the way that other powers chose to react to that enemy.
Whereas the Nazi ideology, potency, and potential lethality was inextricably linked to the German state calling for a war of states to defeat it, the war on terrorism is different in significant ways that require differentiated responses. The terrorists are now and have been geographically decentralized since the end of major combat in Afghanistan and not analogously connected to a state since then either. It was wise and necessary to take out the Taliban for the same reason as it was to do likewise to the Dritten Reich. We no longer have the luxury of such large targets. Nazi ideology died (in any important sense) with the German state. Islamic fundamentalism does not require (although they would certainly like to have) the machinery of a state. It required just five people who wanted to kill Americans to climb into an aircraft.
-joe
By
joe, at 7:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home