Here\u2019s an oft-repeated howler printed in the New York Times from op-ed contributor and Marine Major on duty in Iraq Glen G. Butler<\/p>\n
The pre-emptive doctrine of the current administration will continue to be debated long after I\u2019m gone, but one fact stands for itself: America has not been hit with another catastrophic attack since 9\/11. I firmly believe that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are major reasons that we\u2019ve had it so good at home. Building a \u201cfortress America\u201d is not only impractical, it\u2019s impossible. Prudent homeland security measures are vital, to be sure, but attacking the source of the threat remains essential.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
How often have you heard this one in its various versions? The implication here is that the war on terrorism (including the invasion of Iraq) is the cause of there not being any terrorist attacks in the United States. Now the factual claims are no doubt true. First, we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and there has not been another major terrorist attack-or any terrorist attack-in the United States. No attempt, however, on the part of the author, is made to demonstrate that the two major military operations are the cause of there not being any terrorist attacks in the United States (we should not forget the bombings in Bali and Madrid and elsewhere). Just because, in other words, the war on terrorism (including the invasion of Iraq which even according to George Bush had nothing to do with 9\/11) has preceded the absence of catastrophic terrorist attacks in the United States since 9\/11 does not mean it is the cause. What we have here, in more technical terms, is a perfect example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy-after this, therefore because of this, or the correlation-causation fallacy.<\/p>\n
Should someone not be convinced by this analysis, consider the following scene from the Simpsons, where Homer remarks on the success of Springfield\u2019s attempt to control bear activity:<\/p>\n
Homer: \u201cThere\u2019s not a single bear in sight\u2013the \u2018Bear Patrol\u2019 is working like a charm\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Lisa: \u201cThat\u2019s specious reasoning,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
H: \u201cThanks, honey,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
L: \u201cAccording to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
H: \u201cHmmm. How does it work?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
L: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
H: \u201cHow so?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
L: \u201cIt\u2019s just a rock,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
H: \u201cBut I don\u2019t see a tiger, anywhere.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
H: \u201cLisa, I want to buy your rock.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And consider how many times this passage comes up in the context of the war on terrorism and similar matters. Should the author want to avoid the rock-tigers problem, and therefore avoid utter nonsense, he should offer evidence to the effect that specific terrorist attacks have actually been thwarted by the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Simply believing it firmly-and in the present author\u2019s case, actually putting your life on the line for that belief-does not make it so. Undergoing much personal danger and sacrifice in the service of one\u2019s belief does not make them true.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here\u2019s an oft-repeated howler printed in the New York Times from op-ed contributor and Marine Major on duty in Iraq Glen G. Butler The pre-emptive doctrine of the current administration will continue to be debated long after I\u2019m gone, but one fact stands for itself: America has not been hit with another catastrophic attack since … Continue reading Bear Patrol<\/span>