Logic for Warmongers

Many years ago I did what was, in retrospect, one of the most formative of my University courses. It was my second year - 1978/79 and the course was Logic and the Philosophy of Science. At some point in the year one of the lecturers - and it was either Neil Tennant or Larry Briskman - said "The first thing to do when analysing an argument is not to ask whether it is right or wrong but to ask whether it is relevant". The necessary corolary of this is that although an argument may be rational in form and structure, it might yet be nonsense because the premises are in some respects dodgy.

Park that thought for a moment

The indicator of success in the conduct of an argument about the fundamentals of something is when one's interlocutor unconsciously adopts one's premisses as his own - that is to say he or she starts to argue on your ground. Once this happens then, unless one's own position is fundamentally flawed, the game is won and the only question is how long it will take to wrap it up. Of course when in an argument or negotiation the defence of the sensible is based around not adopting one's interlocutor's premisses, which can be tricky - for example one might agree with someone's conclusion but not the basis upon which that conclusion was reached.

Examples of this can be found everywhere, but currently examples are on prominent display in the war of words between USUK* and everyone else about the forthcoming 'war' in Iraq. Today (11 February 2003) the argument has been about the refusal of some NATO members to provide defensive cover for Turkey. The propaganda machine of USUK has been full of quite disgraceful arguments based upon WW1 and 2 and more recently Kosovo in which France in particular was either liberated or, in the case of Kosovo, the European forces required substantial US military support. The argument appears to be "You owe us a few so support us now".

The problem is that all of the confected outrage cannot disguise the flaws in USUK's position - their premise is irrelevant. Firstly this is because an argument based upon an alleged lack of gratitude does not go one jot or tittle towards establishing the validity of USUK's determination to go to war. Secondly it is because there is an unacknowledged hidden premise - the one that says that what USUK wants USUK must get. The one that says that the rest of the world must do what USUK wants, think like USUK thinks and sing out the anthems in chorus which praise the lavender and rose petal scent of USUK's farts, and isn't the Emperor's new suit of clothes wonderful?

Acceptance of the need now at this moment to move to defend Turkey means, in effect, acceptance of the key premises underlying USUK's call to war. It seems to me that several NATO members are not willing to do this. In my view this is not moral weakness but moral and logical strength and critical to the maintenance of credibility of NATO (and indeed the UN) as forces for the moral good

Moreover it is telling evidence of the weakness of USUK's position - it has failed to provide evidence and failed to win the argument, so it is resorting to abuse.

This all counts for nothing of course: the war will happen; the war will be won; but we have already lost.

* I have decided for convenience simply to contract USA and UK into the collective noun USUK. This saves time. It also leads to all sorts of interesting resonances but resonances and inferences are your own.

BACK to Rants.