Cliché? Parody? Declaration of War?

Got a new book on logic, rhetoric and fallacy to try to understand how people cloak bad ideas in well chosen words... taking it for a test spin with this post....

Dr. Kroenig

I recently read an argument in support of war with Iran (read an argument in support of War with Iran) by Dr. Matt Kroenig, professor at Georgetown, Nuclear Deterrence specialist to the Pentagon and "total dreamboat" on ratemyprofessor.com. Dr Matt Kroenig, whose brother is a male model and sister is a TV anchor, has a good reputation for being thoughtful and creative. When I read his piece advocating an imminent strike on Iran I was floored; not so much by his conclusion, since this has become a depressingly casual position to take, but by his argument.

Brad Kroenig

Call me J.B. Pruett, but the only sense I could make of his depressingly weak argument is that Dr. Kroenig is doing an awesome Stephen Colbert, Derek Zoolander, jiu jitsu move to actually expose the weakness of the casual Attack Iran crowd. Delegitimizing the case for war by exposing deep weaknesses in the argument and adding an element of uncertainty into the game seems like a great move by an expert in the chess match of deterrence strategy.

Maybe Dr. Kroenig actually opposes war with Iran? Maybe he thought outlining his reservations in a sternly worded piece wouldn't change anything or prevent a war? Maybe he thought advocating a strike at full volume would garner a wider audience and expose a questionable argument? Maybe the well respected young Dr. K, who's earned the right to be wrong once or twice knew he would survive the public pratfall? Maybe he thought he'd rather appear to be wrong and prevent a war than appear to be right and not change a thing? Maybe not? Stephen Colbert does it every night. Is it inconceivable that a public figure could take the same approach in a more subtle way? I don't know.

This is my only way to rationalize the strange piece of advocacy.

When I hear a pretty meaningless cliché like "surgical strike" used by such a legit dude, it raises some serious alarm bells. Surgical Strike is a term associated with Desert Storm, precision munitions, SpecOps Ninjas and avoiding civilian casualties. Rhetorically it says "we can do something and get a desired effect without cost or tactical or strategic collateral damage". Why would he weaken his argument with meaningless rhetorical chaff like "surgical strike"? Rightly or wrongly, I have a habit of questioning the foundation of an assertion when I hear a rhetorical flourish like "surgical strike". Its the kind of slight of hand that yields bad choices.

Advocating a course of action and smoothing over the repercussions is not responsible life and death policy advocacy. GEN Stanley McChrystal, former commander of Joint Special Operations Command chuckles at the surgical strike concept:

"I've had surgery before. And when you break the skin, you know, there's a chance of infection and there's a little scar tissue...and there's recovery. So we need to never mistake precision and speed with having no negative side to it and need to balance that in there."

Read his article. Draw your own conclusions.

Of course I've unfairly skewed you from the beginning. This post is a ruse to practice using rhetoric and fallacy to argue against a position. Did you notice argumentum ad hominem (bringing in personal facts about his family), genetic fallacy (assuming that most readers think that the attack Iran conclusion is already wrong), ignoratio elenchi or red herring, apophasis ("I'm not saying you're guilty, but you are pretty quiet"), or juxtaposing a handsome Dr. K with less flattering clips of Derek Zoolander.

Is Matt's argument less credible because he's a handsome bloke? Is there a conspiracy afoot? I made no substantive case against his argument. But hopefully I identified some rhetorical tools, logical fallacies and weak arguments that appear in daily conversation, discussions at work and political debates every day. We're constantly bombarded with these approaches to persuasion. Hope this helps you ID them more easily.

Can you still be right for all the wrong reasons?