JordanL
11-26-2007, 06:17 PM
In another thread, someone asked how people would respond to a particularly long and flawed look at the Iraq war:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=469291&postcount=1
It occurs to me that there is a very real disconnect between most RP supports (who tend to have been opposed to the war from the get-go), and the people we are trying to convince.
I was one of those people. I fully supported the war, I supported GW for reelection, I sneered at the protesters. And now, I will teach you how to convince those people that we should get out as soon as possible.
Below is a five point guide to arguing about the Iraq war. The key to converting these types is to play to what they really care about, (which I can understand because I used to be one). Here's the steps:
1. Reitterate that nobody likes Islamic extremism. Realistically, no one really likes any kind of extremism, but this is the "-ism" that seems most pressing, so it's the one you should re-emphasize. There is no reason to try and convert a voter AND educate them on culture at the same time. One battle at once please.
2. Draw allagories to points in our history in which we fought and won and idea war. The cold war is a GREAT example because we DID win it through economic and strategic might, not sheer force.
3. Emphasize that the point about who was wrong or right going in is moot, and that you are not saying one way or the other who was 'guilty'. Both sides ignore this one... debating the reason we got here is no way to argue about what we should do NOW, and telling someone that the mess we're in is their fault is a sure way to make sure they won't agree.
4. Draw on several aspects of American culture that also hit home with this crowd. Particularly American pride and inginuity. The goal is not to convince them that America has failed, but rather that we are misdirecting our efforts on a war instead of on our economy and our internal affairs.
5. Finally, concede that terrorism must be fought, but point out that the best way of stopping terroism, since it is an idea, is by choking it dry like we did the Soviet Union, which we can only do by being energy independent and having a strong economy, (which requires a strong currency and a balanced budget, which incidentally also requires us to come home).
Here is a post I made which employs all of these points:
To go over a cherry picked history allagory and claim that our actions in any given part of the world can be correlated to 'learning from mistakes' of previous wars is both false and simplistic, though not stupid. It's not difficult to see how someone would jump to that particular conclusion, especially considering that these are exactly the talking points that people have been parroting for years now.
The reality however is far different. In WW II we were not facing an ideology, we were facing a military complex. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity claim, fascism and modern day Islamic extremism are similar only in their submission to authority. Where that authority is derived from, and how it is retained is nothing like how fascism came to be in our past, or how fascism waged war on the rest of the world.
If Islamic extremists would set up a standing army and try to occupy Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we would have an easy time 'learning from our mistakes' and taking the initiative to protect our interests and those of everyone around us.
But despite how much you may want to believe there is a concerted world wide effort to undermine western culture, there is only a perception of such an effort. This is not to say that undermining does not happen, but rather that it, in large part, does not happen in an organized way.
The problem is that there are millions of people who believe in the ideology of Islamic extremism, or at least believe in the flaws of American ideology. We are in the middle of a political war with apolitical consequences. This means that the causes, reasons and effects are all political in nature, and thus looking at them as a good vs. evil meme a la Nazi Germany actually deprives you of a clear view of the reality we live in.
However, even though it is a political problem, people, particularly extremists, express it in an apolitical way. Bombs, guns, threats, etc. This creates an easy, albeit flawed comparison to the Nazis.
It is especially telling that the end of your message talks about liberalism when the story began talking about history and virtuous truth. Ask yourself this: if such a virtuous truth is really as self-evident as you claim, how is it that you feel compelled to assault the political ramifications of your assertions as opposed to the real ones.
The war has cost closer to $3 trillion, (though not all of that cost comes in the form of taxes). if you want to talk about REAL cost, there is no comparison. We have gained so little for such a high cost in Iraq that I cannot think of an engangement that in hindsight is less attractive.
But no one should be faulted for hindsight per say. This is not to say that anyone is 'guilty' because they did or didn't 'support the war'. We are where we are and all we can do is decide where to go from here.
The reality is that, as you somewhat accurately described near the middle, Islam is in the middle of a war of ideas. To quote the Wakowski brothers, "ideas are bulletproof". No amount of money, or soldiers lost, or battles won, or dicatators deposed, will win a war of ideas.
Here's another historical allagory for you. During the cold war, we had many short, "hot" engagements around the world... some more costly than others. But none of these engagements were the war of ideas itself, and to wit, it was an economic war that caused the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. The war of ideas was won from within, not without, and our troops served more as the soft word than the sharp stick.
In Nazi Germany we were fighting a war of survival in the most literal sense. Fascism, it is true, wages a war on ideas; but fascism as an idea only knows how to wage war by waging war, and that is one of it's greatest flaws.
What we are experiencing now with islam is an idea war, not a survival war, and just like the cold war, it will have real consequences and ramifications, such as terrorist attacks. That does not mean we sit and take them, but netiher does it mean we lose sight of the only way we can win this war: by creating a stronger country from within that cannot be cracked by rhetoric, oil prices and currecies.
Right now the war is a race between spending on Iraq and the loss of the dollar. It's how fast we can become energy independent (and not just by pumping our own oil... by looking for alternative sources as well). It's how fast we can repair our import/export market. It's how well we can restore secure borders. It's how much money we can save by forgoing the ultimately fruitless efforts of keeping troops in many other locations abroad.
Does it seem fair that much of Europe gets to sit back and let America foot the bill for their defense? That's what happens when we sit hundreds of thousands of troops over there.
You see, in a war of ideas, it is the group that can make their ideas work that will win out. I think we can both agree that the ideas of Islamic extremism don't "work", but they can have a fascade of working as long as we continue to support their efforts by refusing to make our own ideas work.
America is a strong country, and in a battle of wits between who can support themselves first, we have proven in WWII and the cold war that we are most capable. Getting out of Iraq is not isolationism, it's a tactically sound maneuver to play our strengths. Yes, we do have one of the most capable militaries in the world, but our greatest strength comes from the strategic threat of its use, not from its carelessly common use anywhere that we decide to.
Besides, if you look at the overarching goals for Iraq, we have either discounted or accomplished every single one of them. Saddam is gone, and the people there now have a chance at democracy. It doesn't matter whether or not we were morally justified in going in, because what we are discussing is how we are tactically justified in getting out.
Be careful not to confuse the two... if you were to ask yourself "should I get a new house", you would scarcely give any thought to why you moved into the location you were currently at. Instead you would weigh the pros and cons of staying versus leaving.
Similarly, the simple fact that the pros vastly outweigh the cons for getting out of Iraq says nothing about the reasons we went there or whether or not going there was a good or bad decision. It is only giving a verdict on whether leaving is a good or bad decision, and historically, economically and realistically speaking, it is a very good decision.
The goal is not to convince them to change their mind. The goal is to show them how they simply misunderstand how their mind is made up. You turn all of their reasons for staying into reasons for going not by arguing against them, but by using them instead.
If you have any questions or specific situations you'd like help with, post it here. Like I said, I was a big hawk as little as nine months ago, so I can definitely help you understand how to convince these people.
There's no reason we should look at these people as hopeless.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=469291&postcount=1
It occurs to me that there is a very real disconnect between most RP supports (who tend to have been opposed to the war from the get-go), and the people we are trying to convince.
I was one of those people. I fully supported the war, I supported GW for reelection, I sneered at the protesters. And now, I will teach you how to convince those people that we should get out as soon as possible.
Below is a five point guide to arguing about the Iraq war. The key to converting these types is to play to what they really care about, (which I can understand because I used to be one). Here's the steps:
1. Reitterate that nobody likes Islamic extremism. Realistically, no one really likes any kind of extremism, but this is the "-ism" that seems most pressing, so it's the one you should re-emphasize. There is no reason to try and convert a voter AND educate them on culture at the same time. One battle at once please.
2. Draw allagories to points in our history in which we fought and won and idea war. The cold war is a GREAT example because we DID win it through economic and strategic might, not sheer force.
3. Emphasize that the point about who was wrong or right going in is moot, and that you are not saying one way or the other who was 'guilty'. Both sides ignore this one... debating the reason we got here is no way to argue about what we should do NOW, and telling someone that the mess we're in is their fault is a sure way to make sure they won't agree.
4. Draw on several aspects of American culture that also hit home with this crowd. Particularly American pride and inginuity. The goal is not to convince them that America has failed, but rather that we are misdirecting our efforts on a war instead of on our economy and our internal affairs.
5. Finally, concede that terrorism must be fought, but point out that the best way of stopping terroism, since it is an idea, is by choking it dry like we did the Soviet Union, which we can only do by being energy independent and having a strong economy, (which requires a strong currency and a balanced budget, which incidentally also requires us to come home).
Here is a post I made which employs all of these points:
To go over a cherry picked history allagory and claim that our actions in any given part of the world can be correlated to 'learning from mistakes' of previous wars is both false and simplistic, though not stupid. It's not difficult to see how someone would jump to that particular conclusion, especially considering that these are exactly the talking points that people have been parroting for years now.
The reality however is far different. In WW II we were not facing an ideology, we were facing a military complex. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity claim, fascism and modern day Islamic extremism are similar only in their submission to authority. Where that authority is derived from, and how it is retained is nothing like how fascism came to be in our past, or how fascism waged war on the rest of the world.
If Islamic extremists would set up a standing army and try to occupy Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we would have an easy time 'learning from our mistakes' and taking the initiative to protect our interests and those of everyone around us.
But despite how much you may want to believe there is a concerted world wide effort to undermine western culture, there is only a perception of such an effort. This is not to say that undermining does not happen, but rather that it, in large part, does not happen in an organized way.
The problem is that there are millions of people who believe in the ideology of Islamic extremism, or at least believe in the flaws of American ideology. We are in the middle of a political war with apolitical consequences. This means that the causes, reasons and effects are all political in nature, and thus looking at them as a good vs. evil meme a la Nazi Germany actually deprives you of a clear view of the reality we live in.
However, even though it is a political problem, people, particularly extremists, express it in an apolitical way. Bombs, guns, threats, etc. This creates an easy, albeit flawed comparison to the Nazis.
It is especially telling that the end of your message talks about liberalism when the story began talking about history and virtuous truth. Ask yourself this: if such a virtuous truth is really as self-evident as you claim, how is it that you feel compelled to assault the political ramifications of your assertions as opposed to the real ones.
The war has cost closer to $3 trillion, (though not all of that cost comes in the form of taxes). if you want to talk about REAL cost, there is no comparison. We have gained so little for such a high cost in Iraq that I cannot think of an engangement that in hindsight is less attractive.
But no one should be faulted for hindsight per say. This is not to say that anyone is 'guilty' because they did or didn't 'support the war'. We are where we are and all we can do is decide where to go from here.
The reality is that, as you somewhat accurately described near the middle, Islam is in the middle of a war of ideas. To quote the Wakowski brothers, "ideas are bulletproof". No amount of money, or soldiers lost, or battles won, or dicatators deposed, will win a war of ideas.
Here's another historical allagory for you. During the cold war, we had many short, "hot" engagements around the world... some more costly than others. But none of these engagements were the war of ideas itself, and to wit, it was an economic war that caused the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. The war of ideas was won from within, not without, and our troops served more as the soft word than the sharp stick.
In Nazi Germany we were fighting a war of survival in the most literal sense. Fascism, it is true, wages a war on ideas; but fascism as an idea only knows how to wage war by waging war, and that is one of it's greatest flaws.
What we are experiencing now with islam is an idea war, not a survival war, and just like the cold war, it will have real consequences and ramifications, such as terrorist attacks. That does not mean we sit and take them, but netiher does it mean we lose sight of the only way we can win this war: by creating a stronger country from within that cannot be cracked by rhetoric, oil prices and currecies.
Right now the war is a race between spending on Iraq and the loss of the dollar. It's how fast we can become energy independent (and not just by pumping our own oil... by looking for alternative sources as well). It's how fast we can repair our import/export market. It's how well we can restore secure borders. It's how much money we can save by forgoing the ultimately fruitless efforts of keeping troops in many other locations abroad.
Does it seem fair that much of Europe gets to sit back and let America foot the bill for their defense? That's what happens when we sit hundreds of thousands of troops over there.
You see, in a war of ideas, it is the group that can make their ideas work that will win out. I think we can both agree that the ideas of Islamic extremism don't "work", but they can have a fascade of working as long as we continue to support their efforts by refusing to make our own ideas work.
America is a strong country, and in a battle of wits between who can support themselves first, we have proven in WWII and the cold war that we are most capable. Getting out of Iraq is not isolationism, it's a tactically sound maneuver to play our strengths. Yes, we do have one of the most capable militaries in the world, but our greatest strength comes from the strategic threat of its use, not from its carelessly common use anywhere that we decide to.
Besides, if you look at the overarching goals for Iraq, we have either discounted or accomplished every single one of them. Saddam is gone, and the people there now have a chance at democracy. It doesn't matter whether or not we were morally justified in going in, because what we are discussing is how we are tactically justified in getting out.
Be careful not to confuse the two... if you were to ask yourself "should I get a new house", you would scarcely give any thought to why you moved into the location you were currently at. Instead you would weigh the pros and cons of staying versus leaving.
Similarly, the simple fact that the pros vastly outweigh the cons for getting out of Iraq says nothing about the reasons we went there or whether or not going there was a good or bad decision. It is only giving a verdict on whether leaving is a good or bad decision, and historically, economically and realistically speaking, it is a very good decision.
The goal is not to convince them to change their mind. The goal is to show them how they simply misunderstand how their mind is made up. You turn all of their reasons for staying into reasons for going not by arguing against them, but by using them instead.
If you have any questions or specific situations you'd like help with, post it here. Like I said, I was a big hawk as little as nine months ago, so I can definitely help you understand how to convince these people.
There's no reason we should look at these people as hopeless.