Daily Kos: The Straw Men Of War Escalation Supporters

[Hissyspit]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/2/809870/-The-Straw-Men-of-War-Escalation-Supporters

The Straw Men of War Escalation Supporters
by SuperBowlXX

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 01:16:22 PM EST

One of the things that fascinates me about debating the supporters of President Obama's decision to send in 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is how often I feel confronted by arguments that don't necessarily apply to my position in the debate. While I think that most supporters of a troop surge honestly do believe it's the right policy position to take (or at the very least better than the alternative), part of the problem in even discussing the matter is a misunderstanding of the rationale behind opposing the escalation.

I'd like to take some time to address what I consider to be straw men that misrepresent my opposition to the President's decision. I won't pretend to speak for all of those who share my opposition to the escalation, but I know that I'm not the only one who's had to address these points again and again over the past couple of weeks. I hope I can be reasonably clear enough in explaining my reasons.

SuperBowlXX's diary :: ::

Obama pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan during his Presidential campaign. You voted for him, so you can't say you're surprised by his decision when he's just fulfilling a campaign promise.

This is one of the most common arguments I've read from supporters of the escalation. Yesterday on Countdown, former DNC communications director Karen Finney tried to make the same point in her debate with Cenk Uygur. But it's irrelevant to why I'm opposed to sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

I voted for Obama in the primary against Clinton, and I voted for him in the general election against McCain. I voted for him in spite of his position on escalating the Afghanistan War. Voting for a candidate is not the same as supporting every one of that candidate's positions on the issues, and I certainly am not going to just reflexively support everything he campaigned for. I knew very well that he supported deploying additional troops to Afghanistan when he campaigned. I was opposed to Obama's Afghanistan War policy position during the campaign, I remain opposed to it now. My opposition has nothing to do with being "surprised."

- snip -

The President announced a date for a draw down (July 2011), so you should support his plan (or at least wait for it to work).

Granted, setting a firm timeline is better than funding an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan with no set timeline for withdrawal. But 18 months is a long time for violence to build up, and for thousands of soldiers and Afghani civilians to be killed. I'm very skeptical that President Obama won't extend those deadlines again and again to meet the nebulous definition of "winning" the Afghanistan War. In July 2011, if General McChrystal declares that we haven't met our objectives, 18 months then becomes 24 months, becomes 30 months, becomes 36 months, and on and on we go. Plus, the current Afghanistan government is -- to be generous -- riddled with problems. Problems like corruption, drug trafficking, and a fraudulent election. How do we know that in 18 months, Afghanistan won't still have a corrupt, fraudulent government in place?

- snip -

You don't have the information or intelligence that the President does.

- snip -

Even if our mission is far more expansive than eliminating high-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban members, that still says nothing about whether the cost of such a mission is worth it. I will caution that by building up our troop level in Afghanistan, we're basically giving Afghani citizens who are already angry at U.S. presence in the region justification for opposing what they consider to be a foreign occupation, and they sometimes take action quite violently. We end up destroying their homes and their families, they want to get vengeance. Then they join an anti-U.S. faction that attacks our soldiers in the region. Then our pundits sit back in their chairs and beat the war drum again because violence in Afghanistan goes up. Then our Congressmen and Generals declare that we have to remain in Afghanistan (or escalate it further) for even longer than we had anticipated because the problem is getting worse.

If you think that this is just an empty concern, I suggest you read from David Rohde's account in The New York Times of his captivity in Afghanistan when he was held hostage by the Taliban.

- snip -

Regardless of your position on the Afghanistan War, you should still support the President and have his back, no matter what.

- snip -

But one of the dangers about the "having his back" straw man is that it equates opposition to one of the President's policies with opposition to the Office of the President. It's a stone's throw away from suggesting that criticizing this war policy is unpatriotic, simply because the guy I supported in the general election is advocating for it. I happen to think it's a citizen's patriotic duty to hold the President's feet to the fire when we disagree with his decisions. Like Bill Maher once said: He's your President, not your boyfriend.

MORE

[Chulanowa]

1. What do you call a straw man made out of other straw men?

A meta-scarecrow?

I've only seen the first argument used. And SuperBowl (...Okay...) is trying to make the claim that people using it are saying that you should support the escalation because of this. Sorry, no, it's simply a counter to all the people who are apparently surprised by this. You honestly can't claim to have been bushwhacked by this decision when you knew about it from the moment he started running. It's not a pro- or anti- argument, it's just a statement of fact. If you feel blindsided by this turn of events, then I'm pretty confident you are one of those ignorant fucks who votes based on the candidate's hairstyles or taste in shoes.

The rest of these? I haven't seen, and the author just seems to be yanking Bushisms out of his ass and attributing it to people he disagrees with.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Beat me to it ...

I was about to ask that very same question.

I've certainly made none of those arguments. Indeed I never made an argument at all prior to yesterday because I chose to wait to hear the President's reasoning before forming an opinion based almost entirely on rumor. And, it seems to me, all of the offered strawmen here are in fact products of the rumor-mill arguments that existed prior to last week.

[Hissyspit]

5. I've seen all of them used.

Multiple times.

And I wasn't surprised by Obama's decision at all. It's a straw man, for the most part (a few people have actually seemed ignorant of Obama's campaign promises on Afghanistan, but not the majority.)

Try again.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Oh, I've seen them ...

That wasn't my point exactly, but I realize I left that unclear.

But, the way the argument in the OP is laid out, it is itself set up as a strawman even though the observation made initially that those arguments listed tended themselves to be strawmen.

It's a weird little game of pseudo-logical twister he's got going there.

The point I was trying, badly, to make is that most of the arguments I witnessed prior to last week when realities became at least somewhat clearer were all strawmen of a sort. At the very least, people were talking past each other. And, now, people are still talking past each other, often critiquing the way they talked past each other prior to Tuesday.

Makes my heard hurt, it does.

[RoyGBiv]

14. delete

wrong place

[Hissyspit]

3. I've seen all of them used.

Multiple times.

And I'm not surprised at all about Obama's decision.

[f the letter]

6. i have seen many of these arguments here on DU lately.

Take a quick look down the list of any of the responses to the anti-escalation posts on the greatest threads as of now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7131530 has some good examples up.

[eqfan592]

11. Point to specific posts, not to huge threads.

Honestly, just a quick glance and I didn't see any of the straw man. I saw mention of the time table, but not used in the context that is in the OP, but in response to somebody saying there was no exit strategy or time table set. This isn't a straw man argument, it's correcting a factual error.

[f the letter]

7. Another good one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x33102

[eqfan592]

9. You hit the nail right on the head.

But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that progressives are just as able to construct massive straw-man arguments as any god-fearing neo-con is.

[Postman]

4. You're absolutely right.....I agree with you

[Swamp Rat]

8. k&r

[democraticinsurgent]

10. Kos is unreadable

Been awhile since i've been there, as i tire easily of Markos' paternalistic style.

But wow. That tiled advertising background is enough to give me a week's worth of headaches. I'm all for monetizing your online activities, but yikes, that's tererible.

[Hissyspit]

13. I actually kind of like it.

But apparently I am in the minority. Most Kossacks polled didn't like. There have been some really good things advertised, though, like Frontline documentaries and progressive fundraisers.

[democraticinsurgent]

18. it's just too hard on the eyes

reminds me of my early days of web design when i'd take a graphic and try it out as a tiled background. was a bad idea then and a worse one now.

kos could still sell his background space but not have the tiling/repeat effect. that's what makes it overwhelming.

[berni_mccoy]

12. These aren't straw-man arguments. They are valid positions, labelled as straw-men.

That's a straw-man argument in itself.

[girl gone mad]

17. Every one is a very definitely a straw man argument.

None of these defenses address the actual concerns critics have with Obama's escalation policy. They simply divert attention from the issues of cost, goals, mission, casualties, etc. and instead put the focus on the President's personality and trustworthiness. Slightly more stable ground from which to maintain a pro-war position, but completely irrelevant to the true concerns of the opposition, nonetheless.

[Solly Mack]

16. k/r