This recent war against Iraq has been the issue of serious debates and criticisms of both the doves and hawks. The hawks being those who support this war, and doves being those who do not support this war. Many publications talk about the war and they side with either of the two. Few writers actually present a fair and balanced article. The article, “Occupation Hazards,” that will be analyzed was written by Jacob Weisberg and published in the Slate. It clearly disagrees with the neoconservative hawk’s perception of an easy war and reconstruction. It presents clearly their overly optimistic foresight about the war of Iraq. The war of Iraq has become a serious problem for the US government. The war against Iraq has two main sides and both their views have some strong arguments, but the main issue is who is correct in this argument. The problem with his article is that he jumps to too many drastic conclusions and oversimplifies the neoconservatives into just one category with only one point of view. He attacks the neoconservatives many times and his article lacks any balance in the points he makes against them. This article, however, presents very strong criticisms against the Bush administration and that is why I agree with his point of view, but I disagree with a lot of arguments he uses. Three points will be discussed in analyzing this article’s correctness: the arguments of the writer, the fallacies, and the contraries used.
Mr. Weisberg uses many arguments to denounce the one-sided neoconservative hawk approach. He first accuses the Bush administration to be involved in covering up the failure of the occupation of Iraq so far. The main argument is that the Bush administration and the neoconservative hawks were not prepared for these problems and overlooked the complexity of a war. Not only were they unprepared but also they didn’t want to hear anything that might make them reconsider the war. He then presents a few offensive remarks comparing the neoconservatives’ views to Marxist ideology. I disagree with this statement, because I believe this is invalid reasoning and it is his hypothesis, and personal theories should not be included in a mass-media publication. The neoconservatives and President Bush are presented as lacking much intelligence, while their opponents who reject the on Iraq are referred to as “practically minded policymakers.” The article argues that there were no people to check the influence of the neoconservatives in the presidential Cabinet, so the neoconservatives were free to drive their ideologies to the common people. Many people who defended the President would argue away from his intelligence and say that he had moral clarity in defending Americans against attacks, overlooking that they bombed Afghanistan with little or no proof that Mr. Laden actually committed the September 11 attacks or that the Taliban had anything to do with it. Weisberg then talks about an Army Chief who says that 700,000 troops are needed to invade Iraq successfully, then mentions how he was repudiated by Wolfowitz and retired after his statement. Mentioning that the neoconservatives had unchecked power to implement their will on American affairs.
There are few fallacies that are quite noticeable in Mr. Weisberg’s article. Throughout the article, He oversimplifies complex issues and uses a lot of Overgeneralization. He mentions that the neoconservatives “didn’t want to hear about the potential problems,” overlooking the fact that there was a reason why. The neoconservatives wanted the US public to follow them in what they said without any disagreements. The neoconservatives used a lot of propaganda and were very clever about the war on Iraq. Overgeneralizations include the arguments about they all think alike. The author says they have a preconceived notion that things will go their way, their belief that history is deterministic, that they all have no experience in the battlefield, and that they don’t understand other cultures and people with different political ideas. The author uses a combination of the Fallacy of Opposition, Red Herring, Ad Hominem, and Non Sequitor logic when he calls the neoconservatives intellectual descendants of Marxists and argues the point that their line of thought is a result from Marxist residue. Although this article’s point and main idea is correct, it contains many fallacies and a lot of contraries too.
The author is very clever in his approach to presenting this topic. He makes the reader think in terms of black and white. The article pushes the reader to believe that the neoconservatives are the bad guys, while those who oppose them are the good guys. In reality it is much more complicated than that. He uses contraries to make it seem that the hawks are wrong in their thinking. The fact is however he uses some contraries to argue in his favor as well. First, he mentions the contrary about the US planning an invasion of Iraq, but not planning its occupation. The US had planned the invasion, then it would have planned everything that was subsequent to the invasion. The Pentagon is also criticized because it was a planning agency that did not prepare any alternative scenarios. He uses sarcasm when he mentions there is nothing wrong with their theory, except that it is completely wrong. The article also mentions that the president took the neoconservative Cabinet members’ gambling policies as a “roll of the dice for a mature judgement.”
This article is very complex, and if one is not well-studied in the issue of fallacies and contraries, then he could unquestionably believe everything that is presented without serious thought. The idea is when one reads he/she should have an objective approach and not accept anything unless it is elaborately proven or backed with solid facts. I agree with the main idea, which is that the US government did not adequately prepare for the occupation of Iraq. The only problem that I have with this essay is he uses absurd ideas and slander to get his reader to agree with him. He makes the situation too simple, when it is actually extremely complicated. The way he supported his argument I don’t agree with. Basically I agree with his main argument, but I disagree with the way he supported it. I believe that truth cannot be supported by falsehood or speculation.
Date: 11/21/03
