The Logic of War
There are some leftists who support forcible action against Iraq and some rightists who don't but in general, the lines break along philosophical lines.
The right-leaning folks are the ones most supportive of the policy to take pre-emptive military action against Iraq.
Why?
What set of ideas and notions collude in the minds of rightists to produce a determination to use force against a country like Iraq?
Probably the best way to outline rightist logic patterns is to contrast it with leftist logic patterns.
Below is an example of how a leftist thinks when trying to arrive at a policy position.
Two men sit facing each other in a battle of wits. There are two goblets containing wine on the table between them. The first man has placed poison in one of the goblets and placed one cup before each of them. He then challenges the second man to select one of the goblets at which time they are both to drink and whomever has the poisoned cup, dies.
The second man begins this line of reason to try deduce which of the cups to avoid.
Where's the poison? But it's so simple! All I have to do is divide from what I know of you - are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet knowing that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must've known I was not a great fool, you would've counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. I haven't made my decision yet, though. Because Iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. Australia is entirely peopled with criminals and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. And you must've suspected I would've known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. You've beaten my giant, which means your exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must've studied, and in studying you must've learned that man is mortal, so you would've put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
This (modified) excerpt from the script of the movie, "The Princess Bride", classically showcases the erratic thought patterns that constitute leftist logic.
Right from the start, the thinker makes a fatal flaw. He fails to realize that the factors of the problem have compounded out of the sphere of deduction or control. What remains is nothing but pure chance. The cup in front of either man could have just as easily contained poison.
This flaw in thinking is demonstrated by the present breed of anti-war thinkers. They believe that there is a way to predict whether Saddam Hussein will carry out a nuclear attack if given a chance. They use far-flung factors such as the possible unwillingness of his underlings to carry out an order to strike. They also try to reason that Hussein would not use a nuclear weapon because it would not be in his best interest to do so.
As seductive as these tendrils of logic are, the only pertinent consideration left on the table with a man like Saddam Hussein is chance. There is chance he might use such a weapon and there is a chance that he might not.
The mere fact that there is a tendril of logic that can be used to show a scenario of Saddam not using the weapon seems to be good enough for leftists. These tendrils keep them talking and as long as they are talking, they feel comforted.
On the rightist’s side, the only consideration on the table is the cost of betting wrong. If the wrong cup is chosen and Saddam is left to develop some nuclear weapons which he then goes on to use, the rightists correctly understand that the cost of such an eventuality is astronomically high and therefore great pain must be taken to avoid reaching the point where the choice between cups is actually being made.
Simply put, if I were on the roof of a 6 foot high garden shed, I would be comfortable standing right on the edge with my toes dangling over the eaves because an unexpected stumble would cause only a short fall to the ground. If I were standing on the roof of an 80 story building instead, (as a rightist) I would not venture near the edge because the same stumble would cost me my life. Whatever benefit I derive from standing on the edge does not outweigh the consequences of falling off.
As a leftist, I would argue that since I had successfully stood on the edge of the 6 foot high roof, I should be able to stand on the edge of the roof 80 stories up. I would dangle my toes over the edge of the sky-scraper and invite my children to do the same. "Don't worry", I would say. "Come and enjoy the view from the edge. I did this on the shed and nothing bad happened."
As war approaches, the rightists have prevailed in the argument in favor of war because on September 11, most people saw what the costs could be if the choice was left to despotic madmen.
Most people by-passed the labyrinth of leftist logic and measured the cost and have decided that the cost of taking action now is less than the possible costs of letting Saddam make the decision for us.
