Elmer's Brother

Editor’s Note: The purpose of Rational Thought 101 is not to "prove" that the Iraq War is a smashing success or to argue that every decision that has been made is beyond question. The purpose of Rational Thought 101 is to demonstrate that, while differences of opinion exist concerning Iraq War, there are as of yet no policy issues that should motivate citizens to rise up and endanger our troops with active dissent. Dissent, as developed in the War and Dissent essay, is not voicing one’s opinion; it is the people cautiously exercising ultimate control over the elements of government that wage war.

Some of our fellow citizens are risking their lives representing the interests of this country, which has been moved to war by our representatives.  The fundamental obligation of every citizen is to respect that "contract" between soldier and citizen, a contract that requires commitment. The soldier has, over the years and today, never failed to give us his or her total commitment.  Since Vietnam, the citizen, thinking that war must fit nicely into a formula that excludes death, disorder, and imperfect execution, commits nothing in return.  The old adage that a "plan never survives contact with the enemy" (Von Moltke) has been replaced by the new motto of a spoiled culture: "support never survives contact with the enemy."

The normal process of evaluating the truth or falsehood of claims has broken down.  In the world of Logic, the starting point of this "process" is a proposition, defined as a declarative sentence that makes an assertion.  For example, "Benito Mussolini was a great Italian leader." One can see the process that naturally unfolds from such a primitive proposition: a quick review of history (i.e., Mussolini's fascist roots and disastrous leadership of Italy in WWII) provides sufficient evidence to prove this statement untrue.  

Notice that this "proposition" stands alone.  It is not what a student of Logic would call an argument, since it lacks a premise, or a reason justifying the proposition.  A premise, more simply described, is what follows "because."  "Benito Mussolini was a great Italian leader because he kept the trains running on time."  The point here, without belaboring the rules of Logic, is that determining the truth or falsity of a statement is a rational process that flows from statements to the evidence to a conclusion.

"The Iraq War is not going well" is an isolated proposition devoid of supporting evidence (premises) that is unfortunately accepted as true by people on both sides of the debate.  For the Left, it is regarded as unassailable Scripture on par with "Bush lies" or "FDR was a great president."  For some inexplicable reason – perhaps a result of relentless media pressure – the Right sheepishly accepts this statement as fact more often than not, only to try and salvage the point by discussing "recent progress in Iraq" or "staying the course."

Analysis at any level supports a far different proposition: "The Iraq War is going extremely well." The rules of Logic, informally applied in the following flowchart, demonstrate why.  The process begins with conflicting input and is resolved with tests of evidence:

Flowchart Begins on Next Page

"Our commanders on the ground see the gains the Iraqis are making." George W. Bush

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." John Murtha

"Progress is visible and practical." Joe Lieberman

"What we heard today was a commitment to the status quo – a status quo that is not working" - Nancy Pelosi

"The mistakes are stacked one upon another." John Kerry

Test Number One: The Iraq War is not going well because American military casualties are too high.

False: Each fatality is painful and each life precious; however, given the risk in war, a statistical analysis shows that casualties have been low for a major war.

Flowchart Page One: U.S. Casualty Tests