HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 16, 2007 In the previous incarnation of the National Hockey League, before an ugly labor dispute and lockout forced some changes in practices, there was an unwritten rule that the referees would not call penalties as readily if it was getting late in a close game. Indeed, if the score was 2-2 with about five minutes left, you can bet any penalty which was actually called would have to be of the egregious variety. The logic provided at the time for this philosophy was that the referees, "...did not want to be the deciding factor in a close game." The result, of course, was that all kinds of legitimate penalties went uncalled in these situations as the refs "let them play". The inherent flaw in this logic is quite apparent: By not blowing their whistles after clear infractions of the rules were committed, the referees were playing a significant factor in the final outcome. Players essentially had an open pass to cheat in the waning minutes, and in overtime, of tight contests; punishment was unlikely. The NHL referees forgot that they are on the ice for a reason, to enforce the rules of fair play. Passivity has an impact, for better or worse. It is the emotional side of human nature which tricks us into believing that by doing nothing we have no influence on any associated outcome. As is the case with most emotional arguments, this represents flawed reasoning. Many of the points against the Iraq War invoke the same logic as that used by the NHL referees in defense of their policy of "swallowing their whistles" late in games. The problem, of course, is that
there is far more at stake in the foreign policy arena than there is in a hockey contest. Those who have opposed the war from the beginning, or have become against it as events have evolved, often cite the number of casualties and the current factional fighting as prima facie evidence the war was, and is, wrong. One study, from Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, which ostensibly demonstrates in no uncertain terms, the "true" cost of the war, which of course is stated to be far in excess of that estimated by the federal government. The problem with this study, as well as these other arguments, is that they assume a lack of military action in Iraq would have left us with the status quo, that our inaction would have not influenced any particular outcome. Stiglitz estimates the cost of the war at $2 trillion, but offers up no allowance for any benefit from having Saddam Hussein removed from power, no consideration for what value a truly free Iraq could have on the
world. There is no assumption made for what might have happened had the U.S. never entered Iraq in the first place. It is more convenient for Stiglitz to assume a baseline position that passivity bears no cost. Similarly, those who merely count up the number of casualties and throw the number out there as irrefutable evidence of the evils of war make no allowance for the cost of being unwilling to fight for the cause of freedom. There is no question a decision to go to war puts lives in danger and results in casualties; however, a reluctance to fight when it is called for can also result in death and destruction, and world history bears this ugly truth out. Inaction has a cost. Some of the anti-war crowd state that there are alternatives to war, that they do not advocate a "do nothing" approach; however, those alternatives can and do have the same impact of doing nothing. People die while others sit at negotiating tables attempting to broker peace; evil leaders do lie with no
intention of honoring agreements. The illogical nature of emotional arguments was recently exemplified in Senator Barbara Boxer's interrogation of Condoleeza Rice regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq and to ramp up the action in that war. Boxer's strange line of questioning demonstrates nothing but an empty emotional appeal with little bearing in reality: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families." Much has been made of whether or not Boxer was chiding the Secretary of State for not having children; however, this line of thinking ignores the true flaw in Boxer's reasoning. The larger point is that the Senator was insinuating that decisions of international policy should somehow be influenced by personal emotional thoughts. To Boxer, and others who share her view,
Condoleeza Rice needs to have some personal stake in the war effort in order to make judgements about the conflict. This is a common anti-war tactic, one which is dangerous at its core. Likewise, an argument has been put forth that President Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had children who would likely be sent to fight. Again, this is nothing but emotional blather. Do people who buy into this logic believe that leaders make better decisions when they are blinded by personal issues? Would we be better off if Bush, or another president, avoided a necessary conflict to prevent personal loss at the risk of the nation's security? This logic would not make sense to the average twelve year old, not if it is presented fairly; yet, much of the political left, including the mainstream press, buys into it entirely. Emotional appeals are very powerful, no question. This is because humans are emotional; it is who we are. Politicians have prayed upon the emotions of people forever, at time for their own gain at the expense of the better good. The Democrat party has been particularly adroit in this way. Many of the policies it endorses are nothing more than window dressing to essentially demonstrate how much they care about "the little guy". (The recent vote for a significant increase in the minimum wage is an example of this. This increase if enacted, would benefit very few, if any, and would likely do as much harm as good to small businesses that struggle for survival and to low income workers as jobs become more scarce. But the policy allows the politicians to scream from the hilltops of how much they care.) There are certainly times when emotional arguments can be of benefit, in charity fundrasing for instance. International relations, however, is no place to allow superficial logic
to out muscle reason. Let's not have the shallow mindset of an NHL referee in a hockey game creep into decision making which impacts this nation and the world as a whole.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
