Disagreeing with my interpretation of Rumsfeld’s statement

A conservative writer writes:

Larry, much as I like your writing in general, I really think that you’ve descended to a rather unseemly semantic cheat in your critique of Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was obviously being diplomatic—uncharacteristically, perhaps—in saying that the Iraqis would defeat the insurgency. Obviously the effort will be spearheaded by us. Look, Larry, this thing is extremely winnable. You know that. The destruction of Syrian supply lines for the insurgency would go a long, long way toward getting it over with, and this appears to be what the White House is contemplating, as I noted last Friday. I acknowledge that one can seriously question whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but for me the important question is what to do now. I believe that the wise course is clear, and I strongly suspect that the White House will take the right path. Certainly you must know that the White House plans to win this war, despite what you’re arguing on VFR. Not all such planning is done in public, you know. Nor should it be. I can accept your argument that the White House has given confusing signals to the American public, but that is very far from proving that they don’t have a plan. You’re a good writer, Larry, but in this case you’re not givng the other side a fair shake, and it is resulting in some unfortunately sophistical argumentation on your part.

My reply:

I honestly don’t see how I’m engaged in a sophistical reading. Rumsfeld’s meaning is straightforward and clear. Indeed, one would have to engage in sophism in order to read him otherwise. Or, rather, one would simply have to assert, from an all-knowing position on high, or out of the conviction of one’s own heart, that he doesn’t—he can’t—really mean what he actually said, because if he did mean it, it would just be too awful. But the evidence indicates that he does mean it.

You said:

“Certainly you must know that the White House plans to win this war, despite what you’re arguing on VFR.”

But I know no such thing. If you’ve been reading me, you know that I’ve presented numerous arguments for a year and a half showing that the White House doesn’t have any serious plans to win the war, if by winning the war we mean destroying the insurgency’s ability to wage war and destabilize any successor government.

Also, I find it impossible to credit your notion that Rumsfeld has suddenly re-formulated the entire direction of the war out of a sudden diplomatic need to make the Iraqis feel that they’re playing a decisive part. It would be as if Bush suddenly announced, “We’re not going to fight the insurgency anymore, since it would be a national insult to Iraq to suggest that the Iraqis can’t handle this on their own.” I think that if Bush were to say such a thing, our Iraqi allies, far from being mollified by Bush’s diplomatic consideration for their national pride, would be horrified and terrified by his willingness to abandon them to violent death.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 27, 2005 06:26 PM | Send