One of the things we try to do here on Winds is promote better debate. Not just a better class of debate, but better skills among our readers. Belmont Club offers up a Christopher Hitchens interview as a recent exhibit. Hitchens is schooled in the British Parliamentary debate style, which gives him a sharp understanding of the importance of setting the premises - and not letting them be set for you:
TONY JONES (Australian Broadcasting Corp.): It seems that the United States, and much of the Western world, is still learning the lessons of 9/11. After reflecting on this for five years now, what did we get right and what did we get wrong?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "Mmm. Well I think we found out that we were at war, which was better than being at war and not knowing it, which was the case until five years and about five minutes ago. Until five years and five minutes ago, for example, we didn't know the name AQ Khan. We didn't know that Pakistan was being Talibanised from within, that there were al-Qaeda sympathisers in its nuclear program - and we weren't doing anything about that either. We didn't know, incidentally, that international black market of rogue states: North Korea, Libya and Iran, linked by AQ Khan and exchanging nuclear and other technologies, formed the corners of the box in which we thought had Saddam Hussein. When people talk about the box he was in, that box included AQ Khan and the North Koreans and the nuclear black market. So that goes also partly to the point that keeps coming up of whether or not we are safer. I always think that's a contemptible question. Not just because it can't be answered, but because it seems to demand that our governments exist to give us a sense of security, rather than a sense of our duties in the case of a war...."
Step out of Hitchens' excellent points, and let's look at the underpinnnings of technique for a minute. Because at this point, the interview is essentially over. Hitchens has pretty much won, and unless he hands victory back later Jones has lost.
Why is that? Premises.
Hitchens has now set the premise not only for this question, but for at least two other expected future questions and their variants. Not to mention forcing the whole "realist" scheme of foreign policy thought, which looks at this whole pre-9/11 tableau and calls it both (laughably) "a success" and (fuinniest of all) "peace," onto the defensive. Normally, their views are introduced from the olympian heights of the "experienced foreign policy establishment," lending it weight and credibility. "Yeah," says Hitch in advance, "and how smart was their studied ignorance, based on what we know now?"
All of a sudden that standard play puts the interviewer on dangerous ground. If he goes for the "foreign policy experts" option, Hitch can now simply repeat what he said earlier. That repetition would give his words greater impact, and because he can go through it again in a sort of shorthand he would have room for a deadly riposte about the "foreign policy realist's" frequent lack of realism. Like a comedian: timing, repetition, and then the deadly twist at the end add up to impact.
Whether he uses it or not thereafter, both the interviewer and the audience will sense that he's in more control of the discussion. He is not merely accepting the pace and direction of the interview. He is dictating it, at least in part.
Hitch adds a few more very useful tricks as the interview progresses, including a more detailed demonstration of the art of turning an opponent's premises against him. Belmont Club has the coverage in "How Not To Hunt Tigers". But we'll start with the matter of premises since this was such an excellent two-moves-ahead-of-you demonstration.
Apparently "brevity is the soul of wit" is not part of good debating style.
Next question: Mr. Hitchens you seem to be iddentifying Pakistan as the nexus of the axis of evil. One wonders then why it is considered an ally, and why we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan.
Next follow-up: If indeed it was so necessary to defeat Saddam and remake Iraq why do you suppose the coalition has committed so few resources, done so little planning and had so little success? Shouldn't there be some connection (excuse me, connexion) between the importance of the objective, the difficulty of acheiving it, and the means used?
Hitchens is very good, but this wasn't a particulary deft example. The problem isn't Hitchen's capacity as a debater but rather that the facts on the ground have made his position untenable.
Even with his example to refer to, and time to practice, I could never do what Christopher Hitchens does.
To do what he does, you have to be eager to take in a great quantity of information about obvious liars like Joseph C. Wilson and their risible conspiracy stories, and the numbingly dull but necessary refutations to outright lunatic claims such as that the World Trade Center was blown up on the orders of George W. Bush or The Jews, and you have to keep it all in your head, ready for use at any time. You have to stay interested in concoctions like the Plame affair year after year.
That is the cost of being an effective debater against contemptible opponents and contemptible positions. It is too high.
#2 m. takhallus
Another of the things we learned after 9/11 is that nuclear weapons make radical, terrorist-sponsoring regimes a much more difficult challenge. One wonders why acting to prevent the development of another Pakistan is so controversial.
I think I'm right in saying Hitchens has been pretty scathing on this issue.
The questioner seems to have overlooked that we invaded Afghanistan as the primary Casus belli after 9/11, and in doing so asked the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan a simple question, are you with us or are you with them? Of course, the Taliban government, a theocratic mob of bin Laden admirers, choose one path and the leader of Pakistan, another, arresting AQ Khan, who, as it has been said, is the link. We should not forget in this process that Libya saw the light, so there is some wisdom in an approach of divide and conquer. In contrast, the approach of debating whether Iran or Iraq or North Korea or even Pakistan is the worst of the lot is a call to inaction. Iraq was clearly in violation of numerous UN resolutions, so in terms of issues of international crimes and in terms of past actions of belligerency against its own citizens and its own neighbors, one cannot expect simply to get "tough" on any country while casting a blind eye to Saddam. As for Rumsfeld, he should be fire.
"Next question: Mr. Hitchens you seem to be iddentifying Pakistan as the nexus of the axis of evil. One wonders then why it is considered an ally, and why we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan."
There are any number of outstanding reasons, the only one that is ultimately important being that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and hence is immune to conventional attack. This demonstrates amply why it is critical not to allow other regimes in the region to attain the same trump card.
But flip that coin over for a minute: before the GWOT began, we know what Pakistan was up to playing both sides of the fence (at best). But what about today? Khan is out of business, Mushariff has been forced to take sides, and Pakistan has arrested and killed the vast majority of AQ members and leaders. All without firing a shot. Was there any hope of Hussein assuming that role? If not, the comparison is rather silly. And doesnt Bush get any credit for co-opting Pakistan to our side? For all the griping about Bush's diplomatic failings, what is more important: a helpful Pakistan or a chummy France unwilling to lift a finger either way?
"Next follow-up: If indeed it was so necessary to defeat Saddam and remake Iraq why do you suppose the coalition has committed so few resources, done so little planning and had so little success?"
Now there is a valid criticism. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but its not exculpatory. Its an oversimplifaction, but lets put it this way: Bush and Rummy have tried to run the war like a business. You provide just enough resources for what you assume will do the job, anything else is wasteful. Sadly in war, your assumption are almost always wrong, often devastatingly so. To minimize that problem, you provide overwhelming resources. Clausewitz would be shaking his head at this mess. The one thing that hasnt changed about war is that there is no substitute for numbers.
There has been a real lack of a kind of focus on Iraq that we have desperately needed. You simply cannot make the "yes, but" argument when it comes to critical wartime goals. For instance, the utter failure to repair the electricity infastructure. It is completely irrelevant that it was in terrible shape to begin with. All that matter is whether we fix it or not and how fast. Excuses, no matter how valid, or useless. Its much like a skydiver- it doesnt matter why your parachute didnt get packed correctly or who's fault it was, the ground simply doesnt care. So you somehow make absolutely sure its going to be packed correctly, or you dont jump. Or you die.
m. takhallus, since many of the threads of threats do lead back into Pakistan, and Pakistan is open to us to influence, doesn't it make more sense to treat them as allies and attempt to work change peacefully? I thought one of the critiques of the Administration was that it lacked nuance, but possibly I'm mistaken.
As to the level of success or failure in Iraq, and the resources committed, again I ask you, are you for more resources, or fewer resources? Would you have an Iraq built by America, or an Iraq re-built by Iraqis? The U.S. seems to have chosen a harder approach that hopefully will lead to a stronger finished result. Of course there have been many successes and many setbacks since we took control of Iraq, but consider that Germany and Japan took a generation to rebuild, and at that time we didn't have the active opposition of well-funded foes with which to contend.
In any event, Iraq is no longer in a position to agitate and threaten on the global stage, and serves as a reminder to despots of what even a restrained U.S. military action can do to one's stature amnd material comfort, so should be treated as an absolute success from a strictly realpolitik point of view.
M. all your questions are actually statements of failure dressed with an interrogative, and the premises are not, shall we say, subtle.
I'm glad to see our readers taking Hitchens' example to heart. m. takhallus, thank you for an invaluable service.
And brevity, Duncan, is a ratio. To establish the number of premises and points that Hitch did, in that space, is a marvel of brevity. Read it closely and see. There are almost no wasted words.
The real question is what to establish, and that is a choice where it is preferable to establish no more than necessary - but it is imperative not to establish less. You don't have to establish everything in the first go-around, but your core foundation has to be set there.
Hitchens has set here, at the very least:
1. Radical Islam has been waging war on us of its own accord, and will continue to do so.
2. Saddam was not safely contained, and major threats were growing elsewhere.
3. Nothing of substance was being done about this, and in some cases we were simply ignorant of these developments.
4. The previous approaches failed us (there are nuances within that and targets like the foreign policy realist school, but that's the core).
5. In dangrerous times like these, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Hitch can now build from or expand on any one of these premises.
Jones, as an interviewer who relies on the ability to subtly steer discussions via hidden assumptions that set the tone and tune, is now flummoxed because that has been ripped away from him. He will eventually abandon the interviewer pose and come out as a pure (non-decent) Leftist partisan, but that shift in and of itself sends bad signals to the audience due to its glaring inconsistency; and in any event, it's too little, too late.
There are ways to handle Jones' end of the show, but the way he chose ain't it.
m. takhallus wrote:
Ah, yes, the Highlander theory of enemy states: There can be only one!
It goes along with the Highlander theory on reasons for the Iraq campaign.
Mike
#7:
I've been very loud and very consistent: I wanted more resources, more men, more force.
I agree with #6 above, this is war not Wal-Mart. There was no advantage to underestimating the difficulty, we're not trying to turn a profit.
The Rumsfeld war of carefully-wielded scalpels is a fantasy. We have a long history of winning wars with overwhelming force, using the sheer weight of our resources -- economic, technological, human -- to bury opponents. And we have a recent history of losing or eking out a draw when we get clever or pull our punches.
I fail to understand why we should agree to fight wars with one hand tied behind our back and both feet hobbled. I of course understand the political reasons why Mr. Rumsfeld wanted to do it -- it means we can use war on an almost casual basis, without demanding economic, personal or psychological sacrifice from the American people -- but I don't understand in military terms how this can be rationalized. If the other guy has a division and I have ten divisions I fail to see why I would agree to engage him with only one. Particularly when I not only have to knock him down I have to keep him down and teach his kids to sing the Star Spangled Banner.
As for Pakistan being an ally they have just finished conceding Waziristan to the Taliban which makes Pakistan, despite its weak camouflage, a state which protects terrorists. Pakistan set up the Taliban, sent nuclear know how all over the world, remains a breeding ground for jihadis and today provides the protection of its sovereignty to Taliban and their good friends Al Qaeda.
The message we are sending today is this: once you get nukes you can do anything you like. You can proliferate, you can sign treaties with terrorists, and you can operate your own terrorist groups (into Kashmir) and know that the Americans will do nothing. Not exactly a deterrent to nuclear wanna-bes, is it?
#7:
One additional point: I don't think you want to go to the Japan or Germany analogy. We didn't have an insurgency there because we went in with overwhelming force, an overwhelming occupation, and more money than God. You're making my point.
There are two things you can do with an opposing army: kill it or co-opt it. Or you can kill it and then co-opt it. What we did in Iraq was to slightly wound it, then fire it and send it out to look for work in a situation where the only people advertising for help were militias or terrorist organizations.
#8
On the original question of debate tactics you're right that Hitch doees a good job setting up premises and then attempting to build on his own premises.
The counterattack is to determine the weakest premise and go after it. If you successfully challenge one premise the audience will assume that the others have been damaged as well.
This would leave Hitch to concede the single point and stand on the remaining ones, or else refuse to admit that his line has been breached and come off looking like a spent force repeating his opening talking points like a politician.
Let's say the questioner takes down one of Hitch's premises. The smart countermove from Hitch is to lateral: something on the lines of "Even if I were to concede that there is some validity to your position -- and there is at most only a very little that is valid in your riposte -- you have left unanswered my points B, C, D and E. Do I take it that you accept my points B, C, D and E?"
That throws the questioner back on defense and shifts momentum -- albeit diminished momentum -- back to Hitch.
Questioner, if he's clever however, widens the hole in the enemy line. "I think Mr. Hitchens you're in the position of the captain of the Titanic who, having seen his ship's hull fatally damaged blusters that the remainder of the ship including the grand ballroom is perfectly sound."
But we could do this all day. And I have to get some work done.
Good responses, MT - and good notes re: further tactics.
Of course, Hitch has chosen his points very carefully to leave few (or no) easy attacks here.
On to the off-topic points now, as they raise interesting issues:
That is a conclusion being reached by a range of people across the spectrum. It's more of a subtext right now than an open part of discourse, but it's headed for that destination.
There was a recent article here on Winds re: a unit of the Iraqi Army that the Marines trained. Its commanders were corrupt and stole from the soldiers, officers wouldn't do any of the things they were trained to do, and the unit's behaviour with the locals wasn't ideal and was probably feeding rebellion. The good news is, other units are doing a lot better so the Iraqi Army rises to the level of "uneven" (still better than much of the Arab world).
But contemplate the use of Saddam's army in that light, because in that scenario ALL Iraqi units would look like the Marine report. The Shi'ites don't trust the army and so take up arms - and there are a lot more of them than Sunnis. Throw in Iran's tool al-Sadr, and a Shi'ite insurgency and hence two ethnic front war becomes nearly inevitable. Plus, some army units play a double game with the insurgents, and the prevalence of ex-Saddam units makes it nearly impossible to trust anyone. Pretty soon you have... 2 insurgencies, thanks to Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, et. al. training local cadre, and no local tool to address it with. In other words, an even worse situation.
It might have been interesting and useful to post some of Saddam's army all along the border with Iran, but even in hindsight there isn't much else one could have safely done with it.
It is certainly a divided state. They have also been instrumental in capturing a number of very senior al-Qaeda leaders, who are now in US custody.
The question is what to do with them. Right now the US is playing a 3-corner game with Pakistan and India to pressure Pakistan, and involving NATO in Afghanistan which increases it further. People are Pakistan's #1 export, and their remittances are key.
We know Pakistan will cooperate only to the extent that they are forced to. The question is how to apply that force, and what degree to apply, to what policy ends.
It is not. Which leads to the conclusion that Pakistan must be made into a more negative example, or someone else must fill that role, because Islam's apocalyptic fantasies aren't going away.
The big question is whether the example will come before major proliferation, or after. My bet's on "after," with all the consequences that entails.
Which means we aren't safer than we were before 9/11 - but the Msulim world is a whole lot less safe, and headed for extremely unsafe. And whereas we are aware of our danger, they have no clue that this is happening.
He said, and I quote:
"I always think that's a contemptible question. Not just because it can't be answered, but because it seems to demand that our governments exist to give us a sense of security, rather than a sense of our duties in the case of a war...."
That sounds to me like he believes the US government is not a government of the people, but that the US people belong to the government.
That sounds like he does not believe in accountability at all, nor democracy, but rather in authoritarianism.
Is her perhaps on the monarchical lunatic right fringe? (I admit to being unfamiliar with him -- altho his name sounds familiar. It sounds similar to the drunk guy who was arguing Persian interpretations with Juan Cole, which was really funny as the drunk guy didn't know any Persian or even Arabic. But I don't think it is the same guy, I think it is just a similar name.)
He is free to believe that the people belong to the government, but doesn't that make him pretty much on the side of the enemies of the US?
Do you suppose President Nutcase of Iran, who wants to debate Bush, reads Winds of Change and/or Hitchens? And would he pick up debating techniques, or merely rely upon his listeners divining the glow around his head again?
"As for Pakistan being an ally they have just finished conceding Waziristan to the Taliban which makes Pakistan, despite its weak camouflage, a state which protects terrorists. "
That remains to be seen. The fact that Musharraf has conceeded doesnt automatically mean he had an option. Isnt there a possibility it simply isnt in his power to bring the tribal areas under control? The history of Pakistan suggests as much. The half full argument is that now US and allied forces can operate in the region, because hey, Musharraf begged off. We shall see.
"Pakistan set up the Taliban, sent nuclear know how all over the world, remains a breeding ground for jihadis and today provides the protection of its sovereignty to Taliban and their good friends Al Qaeda."
True. Are you suggesting we need to punish them in the interest of 'justice'? That is not a realpolitical argument to say the least. Whats done is done. Pakistan has almost inarguably done more to destroy Al Qaeda than anyone else including the US. How does that jibe with your theory? It may not be 'fair', but it ultimately doesnt matter. What option would be superior? Would lashing out at Pakistan make them more or less likely to aid the Taliban remnents and AQ? More or less likely to proliferate? Is there a superior alternative to what has actually happened realistically? Because i cant think of one. Pakistan was a major, major no-win situation for us, and Bush managed to nuance a reasonably positive situation out of it.
"The message we are sending today is this: once you get nukes you can do anything you like. "
Thats the message because that's the reality. Why do you think every naughty regime wants nukes so badly? They are the ultimate get out of jail free card. No nation in possession of nuclear weapons has ever suffered a major defeat to its soveriegnty, never even a major attack on it. Thats the point of having them.
"Not exactly a deterrent to nuclear wanna-bes, is it?"
Well, the alternative is to start a nuclear war. Not exactly palatable is it? There is a very good reason we try to nip these things in the bud.
Question- considering all you are noting about Pakistan, are you in favor of striking at Iran before they can establish all of this?
The benefits of that strategy are, to put it lightly, questionable. Armies win battles, but nations win wars.
Mark,
The Yom Kippur War?
Ahmed,
What could be more 'authoritarian' than demanding young men serve in the military against their will? And yet, without conscription we couldn't have won the Second World War, or even fought in Vietnam.
Joe:
It wasn't just a case of using Saddam's army but of denying their manpower to the insurgency. We didn't have to use them for anything except raking dirt -- so long as they were on salary and unavailable as a huge pool of desperate, unemployed men. But I do want to make clear that while some people saw at the beginning of the occupation that this would be a problem, I wasn't one of them. This is hindsight on my part.
Mark:
I won't support any overseas adventure until the following conditions are met:
1) Rumsfeld is gone and has been replaced by someone of unquestioned probity and authority. (McCain? Hagel? Wes Clark? Zinni? George H.W. Bush?) And then only if that person has been given effective control of Iraq, Afghanistan and of any future military efforts.
2) Mr. Cheney is taken entirely out of the national security loop.
3) We begin the process of substantially enlarging the US Army and Marine Corps.
4) We have thorough, complete, bi-partisan congressional review of all intel relating to the case in question. I'll need to hear the case come not from Mr. Bush but from Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham and other people I trust, not from the White House.
Since I don't expect Mr. Bush to be that wise, I'll have to hope nothing blows up in the next two years and that we get a competent president in 2008.
takhallus,
I cannot take any comments about what we "should" ahve done with Iraq's army seriously. Saddam's army disbanded itself, the US simply was not going to be able to comb every village in Iraq to capture every deserter and compel them back into uniform - nothing would have encouraged the insurgency and given it more manpower than that. A truly atrocious idea.
#20:
Actually it would have been child's play. Iraqi soldiers were showing up looking for paychecks. Had we written checks they might be working for us. They followed the money. Most had families to support.
So, no combing necessary.
"The Yom Kippur War?"
An interesting case. It needs to be remembered that Israel has always had an ambiguity regarding their arsenal, particularly in those days. Regardless, what we do know is that both Egypt and Syria intentionally limited their war aims to not set foot in Israel proper. The intention was to defeat Israel on the Sinai and Golan battlefields and win back the losses of the 6 days at the bargaining table. In fact the initial Arab successes were so startling (and unexpected in their scope) that the Arab forces were paralyzed which led to counterattack and defeat. Had Egypt in particular planned to drive on Israel proper, they could have done so. But this would have led to a nuclear response for certain, which is why it wasnt contemplated. After the war Israel became much more clear about the scope and intent of their nuclear weapons, and since then there hasnt been another Arab state making conventional war against Israel. I think Yom Kippur actually proves my point nicely. Nobody wanted war and conquest more than the Arabs against Israel, but even they refused to push Israel to that brink (though it came alarmingly close). This was the Cuban Missile Crisis of Arab/Israeli relations.
m. takhallus i think you have ducked the question. Go ahead and answer it either way:
-knowing Bush is in office for the rest of his term, should we then allow Iran nuclear weapons
Assuming a democrat to your satisfaction is elected to the WH, would you then advocate using force to attack Iran as you claim we should have Pakistan under Bush.
-For that matter under a Dem administration, would you advocate attacking Pakistan to make good all the points you made above?
-Or was all that just anti-Bush contrarianism, as I suspect.
takhallus:
There we go with the Democratic obsession with "sacrifice".
I suggest that every Democrat make his own ration card and pretend that he can only buy sugar once a month. If it seems silly, pretend that Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush ordered you to do it. Throw any silk garments away and pretend that we took them to make parachutes.
Better yet, get an abusive domestic partner to order you around, and save the government some effort.
#22 Mark,
That doesn't strike you as incredibly reckless? The Israelis couldn't possibly know that, and certainly couldn't fight on that assumption. Even assuming they could fight act on that basis, they'd have to account for the possibility of Arab aims changing if the IDF were defeated.
Mark:
I didn't duck the question at all.
While Mr. Bush is in office I will not trust his take on any intel. Period. He gets zero points for credibility. And zero points for competence.
So until he makes the changes I suggest, and I can know that someone with some integrity and competence is running things I will not support an action against Iran. No more half-assed, un-planned, politically-motivated wars.
Get Rumsfeld and Cheney out of the picture, get onto the path toward building the force we need, and let me hear from fully-briefed Senators of both parties, then we'll talk.
And let me just say, Mark, that since I was a supporter of Gulf 1 and Afghanistan and Iraq, and about as hawkish a Democrat as you're going to find, if you can't sell me you can't sell anyone outside of the GOP base.
Glen:
It's not a Democratic obsession, it's a practical necessity.
Wars -- at least long ones - are not fought only by the guys in uniforms. The society as a whole has to be engaged in the struggle because if you don't have the people with you . . . well, you have what we have right now, which is a war the people want ended.
By refusing to ask the people for anything Mr. Bush sends the message that his rhetoric is disconnected from the reality. People wonder how it can be a battle for our very survival if the President doesn't even call for more volunteers, or ask for us to fund more reconstruction.
How are we supposed to take the man seriously when he's borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese and the Saudis in order to finance a senior drug plan and more pork than we can even track?
It's asinine to pretend that the people are somehow irrelevant to a war, or that they can be convinced by empty rhetoric alone -- particularly when the rhetoric flows from a president who is utterly discredited in the eyes of 60% of the American people.
I love guys like you who still insist that everyone else was wrong, and Bush was right, even while we lose our grip on Afghanistan and are reduced to acting as bystanders in the Iraqi civil war and have been left with no military force sufficient to credibly threaten Iran or North Korea.
"That doesn't strike you as incredibly reckless?"
Oh but it does, it was reckless and everybody realized it almost immediately, including the US and Soviets. Like I said, after looking down the barrel of Yom Kippur the Arab stance towards Israel changed significantly. They all want Israel wiped off the map of course, but nobody is lining up to do it. At least not conventionally.
"The Israelis couldn't possibly know that, and certainly couldn't fight on that assumption."
They couldnt and they didnt. Which is why nukes were as close to being used as they ever have been since Nagasaki. Hence the Defense Minister of the time panicking about the destruction of the 3rd temple.
It was reckless and it was dangerous, it was a terrible miscalculation by Sadat. Apparently he really believed he had no choice. He felt his regime was on the verge of collapse if he didnt produce some good news for his people, so he did what he thought was a cunning move by initiating what he hoped would be a limited victory or stalemate against the IDF allowing him some standing in the Arab community. Similar to how Nasrallah behaved provoking the latest conflict really.
#28 Mark Buehner
In other words, Egypt's internal political situation prompted Sadat to order a major conventional attack on a state armed with nuclear weapons.
If the prospect of nuclear annihilation is a risk worth taking for a relatively rational man like Sadat in a tough spot, are nuclear weapons really the deterrent they're made out to be?
You might reply that '73 is the exception that proves the rule, but consider how few nuclear states there are: U.S., Russia, China, France, UK, Israel, India, Pakistan (and recently North Korea and maybe Iran).
Of those, the U.S. is at peace with Canada and Mexico, Russia and China check each other with MAD, France and Britain are at peace, India and Pakistan check each other with MAD... Only Israel was ever likely to be attacked conventionally by a neighbour, and it happened.
Joe Katzman: "And brevity, Duncan, is a ratio. To establish the number of premises and points that Hitch did, in that space, is a marvel of brevity. Read it closely and see. There are almost no wasted words."
No. Brevity is brief.
Your suggestion that I "read it closely" proves my point. It would be tedious to do so. So I shan't.
Hitchens' argument is forgettable. Ergo bad.
What you advance is not an argument, Duncan, but an assertion backed by refusal to discuss. "Tedious" and "forgettable" well describe the effects of its laziness and smarm on me. Perhaps you wish to offer a more substantive response that includes actual perusal, analysis, suggestions, etc.?
As for Hitchens' argument, it was effective enough to anchor the rest of the interview, and shift control away from the interviewer to Hitchens. This can be readily observed via the links at Belmont Club.
This post (and a very good discussion I might add) is dedicated to those interested in better understanding why and how, as a step toward better civic understanding and participation.
RE: Debating methods and premises... let's look at a couple of examples right here:
#26: MT prefaces his reply by saying he isn't ducking the question - and then completely ducks the question by openly refusing to discuss the issue of Iran. That opening preface is a premise in disguise. Accompanying tip: if someone says they aren't doing something while in a debate, it's usually a sign that you can nail them to the wall for exactly that. This rule isn't 100%, but it's about 80% in my experience.
To nail them, use facts and repetition. For a subtle twist, each time can be more damning than the last:
"We know X, from this source.... But MT won't discuss the issue of Iran. Not that he's ducking the question, or anything."
We know Y, from this source.... But MT won't discuss the issue of Iran. Not that he's ducking the question, or afraid of it, or anything.
We know Z, from this source.... But MT won't discuss the issue of Iran. Not that he's ducking the question, or afraid of it, or anything. And of course, we can take his word that our security is important to him and his party. Right?"
For more poetic tips on this approach, its hard to beat Shakespeare's Marc Antony in Julius Caesar. "But Brutus says....And Brutus is a honourable man." Which, ironically, he was.
#24: Mark Buehner's caustic bit about sacrifice. MT replies in #27 with what I'd say is a good, solid debating reply. It might have been enhanced a bit via MT's earlier advice, though, looking for the weakest part of the opponent's argument or premises. Which is...?
The word "Democrat," which slips in the premise that this is just some partisan folderol. Since one can find Republicans echoing this issue, I might have started my riposte with that. Mark would lose a bit of cred right off the bat, then it's time to go in for the rest under a "and here's why people in both parties are right to be concerned..." Mark is now solidly boxed in as a partisan who has overstated himself, while MT is left holding the reasonable middle. It may be possible for Mark to climb back, but it's much more difficult than it would be in the simple my view/your view exchange of #24 and #27.
The sentence appears dense because it was originally spoken and then transcribed into writing. It is easy to read a complex sentence if the rules of grammar are followed. But people almost never speak in proper sentences; they speak in run-ons and sentence fragments. Instead, verbal speech relies upon a number of audible cues, such as breaths and emphasis and pacing, as well as visual aids, such as hand gestures. The interviewer certainly understood Hitchens, which I believe is Joe's point.
"Of those, the U.S. is at peace with Canada and Mexico, Russia and China check each other with MAD, France and Britain are at peace, India and Pakistan check each other with MAD... Only Israel was ever likely to be attacked conventionally by a neighbour, and it happened."
But China and India have fought, as have China and Russia, India and Pakistan. The US went to war with China in Korea. The colonial powers have had their colonies nibbled out from under them by nuclear and non-nuclear powers for years.
My point was never that nuclear powers will never be warred with. My point is that it is highly improbable that a nuclear powers soveriegnty will be seriously threatened. The Yom Kippur example stands up because Egypt threatened soveriegnty accidently, and it scared the crap out of everyone involved and never happened again. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a similar case- the rules for the game were being established. The bottom line is pretty obvious though, nobody wants their major cities to be nuked- anything they can possibly gain from war cant come close to compensating for that. Hence threatening the vital interests of a nuclear power is madness, even by accident it must be avoided. Powers can now only nip at each other heels. This was the major reason the Cold War was cold- the major powers can only fight via proxy and only fight over non-vital interests. Think of the effort expended by both sides in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan that realistically held basically zero strategic value. Thats the only way the game can be played. Thats why it is vital, absolutely vital that Iran not achieve nuclear weapons. Not because they will use them or give them to someone who will (a plausible threat, but still an unlikely one), but because they can do whatever in the world else they wish short of directly threatening another nuclear powers vital core sovereignty. It gives them a permanent seat at the big boy table. That is an extremely bad thing.
"What you advance is not an argument, Duncan, but an assertion backed by refusal to discuss. "Tedious" and "forgettable" well describe the effects of its laziness and smarm on me. Perhaps you wish to offer a more substantive response that includes actual perusal, analysis, suggestions, etc.?"
So you assert.
But I thought you were merely attempting to discuss Hitchens' debating style - to discuss his technique in some abstract sense. Certainly you were not trying to advance Hitchens' actual position through some sort of subterfuge. I took you, and will continue to take you, at full face value.
Frankly, the only time that, at length, I have listened to Hitchens was on Bill Maher about a year ago.
He then, time and time again, went on about how some Muslim, during the War Against the Barbary Pirates, said some terrible thing. Therefore Muslims today are likewise terrible, or so Hitchens seemed to be saying. In any event, he constantly interrupted others with this point. Time after time after time.
With all due respect to the war against the Barbary Pirates, that was about 1800 or so, as I recall.
To refresh people's memories, between then and now the British actually sacked Washington and burned the White House - during the War of 1812. But people seem to have gotten over that. (At least, until Tony Blair is actually kicked out, they are not very likely actually to attack us. I think.)
So I think that people, likewise, could get over the war against the Barbary Pirates.
Since then, regrettably, I have not taken anything Hitchens has had to say very seriously.
And I will grant you that Hitchens, by his Barbary Pirates comments, was able to disrupt the flow of the overall conversation and to obstruct others from making their points. So he does have a certain blunderbuss effect.
Wow, if that wasnt an unsourced ad hominem attack on Hitchens i dont know what was. I have a good deal of fate if i tracked down that transcipt it wouldnt bear much resemblance to the above rant.
I stand corrected. Words like "tedious," "forgettable," and "laziness" hardly do my opponent justice....
Here's the transcript in question.
All I can say it, wow, Duncan sure knows how to slime someone.
First of all, Maher had just introduced Hitchens latest book on Thomas Jefferson (who happened to be the president during the Barbary wars). Here is the extent of the discussion on the Barbary Wars:
HITCHENS: Well, let me give you an example, from Mr. Jefferson – since you asked me to mention my book, which I happily do – fine bookstores everywhere – in 1788, when the United States was barely a country—
MAHER: Right.
HITCHENS: --was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states , the states of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa .
MAHER: Tripoli .
HITCHENS: Tripoli , exactly.
MAHER: “The shores of Tripoli .”
HITCHENS: “Shores of Tripoli .” And its people – ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery. We estimate one-and-a-half million European and American slaves taken between 1750 and 1815. Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said, “Why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren't in the Crusades. We weren't in the war in Spain . Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people?”
And the ambassador said very plainly – Mr. Abdurrahman – said, “Because the Koran gives us permission to do so because you are infidels. And that's our answer.” And Jefferson said, “In that case, I will send a Navy which will crush your state.” Which he did. And a good thing, too. Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a lie to say so. It's a masochistic lie.
So aside from Maher showcasing that his knowledge of the subject can be summed up in the Marine Corp Hymn, Hitchens managed to succinctly offer a premise for why this brand of expansionist, fascist Islam exists.. and that it has existed for a long time, all in the context of a subject he is an expert in and that was introduced by the host.
Wow, what a lunatic spouting unrelated craziness.
I think that the prior posts demonstrate that, whatever skills those individuals actually do possess, a mastery of British debating technique is not one of them.
Joe:
Excuse me, but bull.
I was asked if I'd support an attack on Iran and I said no. Twice. Now I've said it a third time. Anyone capable of reading English knew precisely what I was saying: No. No, I won't support an attack on Iran so long as the current idiots are in power. Should I put it in all caps? NO I WON'T SUPPORT ACTION AGAINST IRAN TIL THIS IDIOT IS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE OR REMOVED FROM EFFECTIVE CONTROL.
Let me know if you detect unintended subtleties there.
FYI Joe:
I don't play debate games unless I have a weak hand. I'm holding the equivalent of say, three kings. No gaming necesssary.
Takhallus,
I find that form of argument to be the farthest from "three kings" hand possible. When one actually has an argument, one does not think that refering to the president as an idiot is itself an argument.
Duncan,
Feel free to begin demonstrating better debate skills, but misrepresenting the context of a quote isn't impressive. Mark in fact showed that your use of the anecdote of Hitchins was misleading and that probably you didn't even understand Hitchins' point.
Robin: I am very sorry but the proposition that the war against the Barbary pirates has anything to do with the current so-called "War on Terror" is ludicrous on its face. That you and Mark assert otherwise proves nothing.
I am very sorry that the Algerians in 1800 enslaved Europeans and Americans upon the basis that they were Christian and not Muslim. I am also very sorry that the medieval Florentines enslaved Algerians upon the basis that they were Muslims, not Christians. The Barbary pirate conduct, however, had no more do with current al Qaeda situation than the Florentine conduct had to do with Mussolini. I really do think most people can grasp this point.
The Hitchens quote merely confirmed that he did, actually, attempt to make this connection, which confirms my recollection.
It is increasingly obvious that the real agenda of this thread is the actual substance of Hitchens' arguments and not the asserted merits of his debating style. It is very obvious that Hitchens just throws a lot of words at people in an effort to disrupt and disorient them. "Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a lie to say so. It's a masochistic lie." Let me speak plainly; this is crap.
Duncan here is an excellent example of several debating techniques, all of which are illegitimate. Most prominent is the ad hominem. Note that is NOT any attack on an arguer. It is, instead, an attack on the arguer INSTEAD of on an argument.
Saying that Hitchens wasn't effective and displays poor technique, but you won't read the transcript, or watch the video, or discuss the technique because you don't pay attention to the man is as classic an example as one can imagine. It boils down to "Hitchens wasn't effective because I don't like him." As I say, classic ad hominem silliness.
The same would be true, one notes, if the speaker were Noam Chomsky. His effectiveness/technique and the fact that he's a Holocaust apologist/denier have nothing to do with one another.
The best response to ad hominems is to initially point it out, then simply respond with witty, personal, and short return fire thereafter and get on with establishing your own points.
The next tactic, represented most recently, is one where your opponent simply makes up an argument that isn't relevant and then argues against it. For instance, the proposition "Hitchens wasn't convincing during X episode" cannot logically be addressed by arguing against something he did not in fact say there.
Such people are debating with themselves, and once again, it's best to point out the error and move on.
Last, we have Duncan's favorite tactic: assertion. It's pretty much all he's got, or at least all he has shown. The latest bit about the Barbary Pirates (hello, debating with oneself) being, again, a prime example. In that earlier eipode, Hitchens is arguing that their reply to America that infidels are their lawful prey shows an aggressive doctrine that lies at the theocratic heart of the religion of Islam; he then links it to similar statements today that also base themselves in Islamic religious doctrine that holds infidels as legitimate prey for acts beyond the civilized pale. Duncan's response is to simply assert no connection and try to bully. It's dumb, and it's cheap. He does come close to making an argument with the Florentine analogy, however:
One can simply point out that Mussolini didn't base his conduct on Florentine ideology, whereas the Barbary Pirates and al-Qaeda share a common religious doctrine that legitimizes their behaviour... and wonder why Duncan finds THAT point so very hard to grasp.
Perhaps because his grasp of history is so shallow and pathetic that he could dare utter this next statement with a straight face, in spite of the oceans of blood that have been spilled in places like India, Arabia, Europe et. al. is the name of an imperial and merciless fundamentalist Islam before such a thing as America even existed. Despite, even, Osama's citation of pre-America "Andalus" as one of the key justifications for his war on the West (and of course, the joooos), Duncan can say this:
Given the clear historical record, an individual who can say that with a straight face is either staggeringly ignorant, or so driven by hate that he can and will say anything in the furtherance of that hate. For here we have, I submit, the root of Duncan's trouble with Hitchens: that he fails to share the white-hot hate Duncan has for America, and refuses to blame it for Islamic fundamentalism.
Hence the ad hominem attack on Hitchens from the beginning. Hence the heated assertion masquerading as argument. Hence the attempts to switch the subject to other topics which channel that hate.
Verbal explosions that do not relate to clearly set topics of discussion but do relate to one's internal hates and disturbed state are more related to Tourette's than they are to rational debate. An effort of which Duncan has shown himself here to be, at best, barely capable of.
Duncan, if there is justice in the world somebody will track down a thread you engage in a year hence and recall that once upon a time you wildly interupted a discussion with tales of Barbary pirates that had nothing to do with the point at hand.
The irony is thick, it only adds to the drama that there is no way you will see it.