There's a soundbite gaining traction that needs to be derailed immediately, the one about it being better to battle terrorists in Baghdad than Boston.

While this is unassailably true, it's also patently ridiculous.

Look at this construction from Logic 101.

Noboby's perfect.
I'm a nobody.
Therefore I'm perfect.

This is an example of using logic to show something is illogical

Here's another example.

Some dogs are brown.
My dog is brown.
Therefore my dog is some dog.

Now the Halliburton version.

It's good for the US to fight terrorists.
Terrorists are now flooding into Iraq.
Therefore it's good to fight terrorists in Iraq.

See where I'm going here?

The US ignored history in Afghanistan (even Alexander the Great couldn't conquer it) and Osama bin Laden remains elusive. The U.S. ignored history in Iraq (Lawrence of Arabia) and now an American G.I. dies every other day.

There's one other lesson of history forgotten by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld crowd, and it concerns Viet Nam. The genius of Ho Chi Minh was that he knew his side did not have to win. All it had to do was not lose. Deny victory to the other side and eventually they will go home.

Now the U.S. is in Iraq to provide stability, which means, of course, as long as a handful of people keep creating instability, the goal -- and victory -- is denied. But not according to the current twisted logic of the U.S. Administration:

Victory equals stability.
Stability is easy to disrupt.
Therefore, victory is easy.

Obviously there are some problems with that logical construction. So now let's try one other approach.

One way to solve the problem of drunken driving is to eliminate all cars. One way to get rid of termites is to burn down the house. Now obviously these actions may be logical, but they are also absurd.

But now apply it to the war on terror. Consider that terrorists are the drunken driver subset of all drivers. Consider that terrorists are the termites of the house. So what has the U.S. done? In a war against terrorists, who operate in small cells, the U.S. has invaded entire countries -- by analogy, eliminating all cars, burning down the entire house. And where, my friends, is the logic in that?

Now consider the case of North Korea, the country most likely to be invaded if the Republicans are in trouble in the 2004 elections.

The U.S. keeps threatening North Korea
North Korea wants nuclear weapons to deter the U.S. threat
Therefore the U.S. wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons

The logic of the outcome is opposite the stated goal.

To close, I go back to a recent conversation (okay, shouting match) I had with a tree-butchering crew from the electric company. The question was put to me: "Would I rather have electricity or trees?"

I blistered the crew chief for such an ignorant false choice. The reason these people butcher trees with their 10-foot setback is they only do it every seven years; keep a more current schedule, and lines could be kept clear without such sweeping damage.

I bring that point up because it's the way the Bush Administration operates; it puts itself in bad situations and then says it has no other choice but the one it has chosen.

"Iraq is now the Central Front on terror," Bush declared Friday. Well, no joke; the U.S. made itself an easy target in a land favorable to the enemy when it did not have to, and committed itself to an open-ended stay to boot. That's not freedom on the march; that's illogical. Instead of a plan, there's a vague hope that Iraqis will hold an American-style election and the soldiers will come home.

The U.S. believes in free elections
In a free election, Iraqis will vote for an Islamic regime like Iran
Therefore, the U.S. believes in Islamic regimes like Iran

And, apparently, willing to spend $1.5 billion a week on them, too.

I can't say for sure what Osama bin Laden is doing nowadays, but I'm sure of one thing.

He's grinning ear-to-ear.

-30-

Return to The Marshall Occasional home page