humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 13, 3:00 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <778467cc-ace9-42f8-843c-c72cbfde6d23
> @n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mark_siev...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's the quote with a little more context:
>
> > "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani confirms a trend that's been under
> > way for years. Conventional wisdom had it that the wars in Afghanistan
> > and Iraq, and the lack of progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict,
> > would provide radical Islamists with a springboard from which to seize
> > power through elections.
>
> > "Analysts in the West used that prospect to argue against the Bush
> > Doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. These analysts
> > argued that Muslims were not ready for democracy, and that elections
> > would only translate into victory for hard-line Islamists.
>
> > "The facts tell a different story. So far, no Islamist party has
> > managed to win a majority of the popular vote in any of the Muslim
> > countries where reasonably clean elections are held. If anything, the
> > Islamist share of the vote has been declining across the board."
>
> > As you said, attributing this to the Bush Doctrine is a post hoc, ergo
> > propter hoc fallacy.  But I don't think that was the author's intent.
> > Rather, his point seems to be that where free elections are held,
> > Muslim fundamentalists don't do well.  That's kind of counter to the
> > "clash of civilizations" line that some like to argue.
>
> I couldn't tell if the author of the quote was guilty of a post hoc
> fallacy, but Bill presented the quote in the context of how "we're
> winning the war on terror".  Some good things seem to be happening, but
> the idea that "we" have had anything to do with Muslims rejecting
> fundamentalism at the polls is absurd.

"Absurd" is a strong word, but I would agree that there's not much
evidence to support that idea. I think a more significant factor is
that the radicals have been attacking other Muslims.

>  Furthermore, the "Bush
> Doctrine" added "spreading democracy" as an afterthought to "the right
> to take preemptive strikes without the customary legal constraints of
> necessity and proportionality".   The latter is the central feature of
> the "Bush Doctrine", and that is what he will be remembered for.

I'm going to quibble about the choice of words again here, because
this is a pet peeve of mine. *Preemptive* attacks are perfectly
legitimate. A preemptive attack is when it is clear that one sign is
preparing an imminent attack, and the other side attacks first to
forestall that. What Bush has been pushing, despite the language
often used, is not preemptive war, but *preventive* war, which means
attacking to eliminate a potential future threat rather than a current
threat.