In reference to a post last week about academic experts and the war (and pro-war liberal apologetics), I came across the following document (thanks samefacts):
>Advertisement in the New York Times
>Op-ed page
>9/25/02
>WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST
>As scholars of international security affairs, we recognize that war is sometimes necessary to ensure our national security or other vital interests. We also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and that Iraq has defied a number of U.N. resolutions.
>But military force should be used only when it advances U.S. national interests. War with Iraq does not meet this standard:
>Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
>Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
>The first Bush Administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
>The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options–chemical and biological weapons, urban combat–that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
>Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
>Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe. The United States should maintain vigilant containment of Iraq – using its own assets and the resources of the United Nations – and be prepared to invade Iraq if it threatens to attack America or its allies. That is not the case today. We should concentrate instead on defeating al Qaeda.
>Roobert J. Art, Brandeis University
>Richard K. Betts, Columbia University
>Dale C. Copeland, University of Virginia
>Michael C. Desch, University of Kentucky
>Sumit Ganguly, University of Texas
>Charles L. Glaser, University of Chicago
>Alexander L. George, Stanford University
>Richard K. Herrmann, Ohio State University
>George C. Herring, University of Kentucky
>Robert Jervis, Columbia University
>Chaim Kaufmann, Lehigh University
>Carl Kaysen, MIT
>Elizabeth Kier, University of Washington
>Deborah Larson, UCLA
>Jack S. Levy, Rutgers University
>Peter Liberman, Queens College
>John J. Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
>Steven E. Miller, Harvard University
>Charles C. Moskos, Northwestern University
>Robert A. Pape, University of Chicago
>Barry R. Posen, MIT
>Robert Powell, UC – Berkeley
>George H. Quester, University of Maryland
>Richard Rosecrance, UCLA
>Thomas C. Schelling, University of Maryland
>Randall L. Schweller, Ohio State University
>Glenn H. Snyder, University of North Carolina
>Jack L. Snyder, Columbia University
>Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland
>Stephen Van Evera, MIT
>Stephen M. Walt, Harvard University
>Kenneth N. Waltz, Columbia University
>Cindy Williams, MIT
In light of all of that heft and expertise–not to mention the argument in the advertisement–I wonder about things like this:
>I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.
That’s Jonah Goldberg. He thought this was a good argument for invading Iraq:
>Q: If you’re a new sheriff in a really bad town, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Smack the stuffing out of the nearest, biggest bad guy you can.
>Q: If you’re a new inmate in a rough prison, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Pick a fight with the biggest, meanest cat you can — but make sure you can win.
>Q: If you’re a kid and you’ve had enough of the school bullies pants-ing you in the cafeteria, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Punch one of them in the nose as hard as you can and then stand your ground.
>Q: If you’re the leader of a peaceful and prosperous nation which serves as the last best hope of humanity and the backbone of international stability and a bunch of fanatics murder thousands of your people on your own soil, what’s one of the smartest thing you can do?
>A: Knock the crap out of Iraq.
>Why Iraq? Well, there are two answers to that question.
>The first answer is “Why not?” (If it helps, think of Bluto burping “Why not?” in Animal House.)
>The second answer: Iraq deserved it.
>Now. Here’s the important part: Both of these are good answers.
insane…
Jem–
Subtract the “s”. Inane. Insanity gives him an excuse. This is just sheer ignorance.
Leave it to Goldberg to change the old saw “Don’t confuse me with the facts” with its new version, “Don’t confuse me with good arguments.”
If I need my car fixed I go to an automotive mechanic and not a plumber. When I need to get a good handle on some set of facts, say the historical/cultural circumstances of Iraq, I seek the knowledge of academics who are experts in that area. Politicians and their lackeys (aka pundits) are NOT the relevant experts on almost any matter. I don’t understand why a large bulk of the American public finds this hard to believe.
We live in a society where we put a lot of trust into experts. Experts are people who we believe not only have more knowledge than we of certain subjects, but also who we believe are qualified to form solid well-informed opinions on those subjects, opinions that we can use to make good decisions. Pundits are certainly not experts, so we should trust there opinions no more than we would trust the opinion of any other non-expert. So we need to focus closely on their arguments since they have no special relation to the facts. And, when actual experts come to conclusions that differ from pundits we should cast a very critical eye toward the pundit’s arguments.
So my point is that it is a very good thing to evaluate arguments found in op/ed pieces, but if we want to show the wider public the biggest weakness behind such foolish argumentation we need to help them understand the difference between experts and non-experts. Experts can make foolish arguments too, even in their area of expertise. But, the argument of the expert should begin at a different status than the argument of a non-expert. And, perhaps if Goldberg understood that then he wouldn’t say such foolish things.