Marine in Afghanistan. What is his mission?
Readers here will know that I chastise commenter Carl frequently for using the high school debate tactic known as “reducio ad absurdum” – or reduction to the absurd.
The technique is a form of putting words in your opponents mouth. For instance, if I say “welfare is too lenient”, my opponent, using this technique, would say “we can’t deny children food”. Which isn’t what I said or intend.
Recently, prominent columnists have cast doubt on the Afghanistan mission. I share this doubt.
Brett Stephens, a columnist I’m usually agreeing with, declares that “Win in Afghanistan, or we’re doomed”.
Put simply, it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that laid much of the imaginative groundwork for 9/11. So imagine the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists—and the possibilities that would open up to them—if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn.
But… nobody was proposing withdraw. By reducing the argument to “what we do now” or “withdraw”, Stephens makes a big and incorrect rhetorical leap. We don’t want to leave and let them do what they will, we just didn’t see the necessity or viability of the nation building push that has ramped up our casualties and prompted calls for more troops. We want to do it smarter. Will suggests:
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
I don’t think we can make Afghanistan a modern, safe, society that won’t hatch terrorists plots. My proof? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, need I go on? Muslims are wacko, whether in huts or in skyscrapers. All we can do is deny them a safe haven – and FOBs, air power, SF troops and Predators can do that just fine.
Reducio ad absurdium… watch for it. It usually backs up a very weak argument.