Cognitive Dissonance & the Right

[DreadNiK]

Beerina:


Such as... ?

Well, obviously the people who bought into the administration's lies and propaganda are in the best position to determine what we ought to now do in Iraq.

You see, pulling out of Iraq is not a serious position. It's for lightweights; the pony-tailed peace protestors who haven't showered for days. Invading and occupying Iraq, over the protests of people across the globe is supremely serious foreign policy.

Threat inflation leading to bomb dropping and promises of being "greeted as liberators" is something we cannot dismiss. But if someone even suggests -- oh, I dunno, leaving Iraq -- then they're just mad.

The Right-Wing B.S. machine has done an excellent of job of framing the debate before and after the invasion. First of all, American conservatives supporting GW and this stupid war have done so mostly for national security interests, not to "liberate the noble Iraqis." Fact. Therefore, Bush had to sell Iraq as an "urgent," "immediate," and "gathering" threat. And you can consult their rhetoric to see that this is exactly what they did.

Myself, and many others on the left (but also on the right and in the center) never viewed Iraq as much of a threat. This position was not unclear to us or anyone else at the time. Importantly, Colin Powell managed to convinced people with doubts with his presentation to the U.N. (and look to see how well that's held up).

It's not a matter of only what Saddam possessed (WMDs, allegedly), but whether or not he had the will and the ability to deliver WMDs. People seem to overlook these second and third criteria because the Bush administration couldn't have been more wrong on the first.

Well, I believe the war was a mistake, and the lies about the WMDs were completely unforgivable.

But I also believe pulling out would be compounding that mistake.

 

[marksman]

Well, I believe the war was a mistake, and the lies about the WMDs were completely unforgivable.

But I also believe pulling out would be compounding that mistake.

I as well. The war was a mistake. The misrepresentations/spin leading us into war was a grave, heinous mistake. Leaving Iraq prematurely would also be a mistake.

 

[Cain]

Well, I believe the war was a mistake, and the lies about the WMDs were completely unforgivable.

But I also believe pulling out would be compounding that mistake.

Maybe even I agree with that position. But the whole idea of a pullout is just taken as being off the table by the people who have been making mistakes all along, as if they know *anything*. How many people are suggesting we pack up our bags and leave abruptly? What about the Realists who emphasize American blood, American prestige, and American treasure? There is no time line in place, no clarity of objectives, unimpressive support from the American public. The "serious" position is similar to the one you express above: "Yeah, it was bad, but we can't leave! Uh, we just can't. Things will get worse!" And people have been saying that for more than three years now as the situation has deteriorated. "Oh, but it would be much worse now if we had left!"

 

[DreadNiK]

Maybe even I agree with that position. But the whole idea of a pullout is just taken as being off the table by the people who have been making mistakes all along, as if they know *anything*.

What were the mistakes exactly? Apart from not realising the extent to which the people of Iraq like to blow each other up?

How many people are suggesting we pack up our bags and leave abruptly?

Quite a few, I believe.

What about the Realists who emphasize American blood, American prestige, and American treasure? There is no time line in place, no clarity of objectives, unimpressive support from the American public.

Fair enough, but if the public support something, that still doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

The "serious" position is similar to the one you express above: "Yeah, it was bad, but we can't leave! Uh, we just can't. Things will get worse!" And people have been saying that for more than three years now as the situation has deteriorated. "Oh, but it would be much worse now if we had left!"

Putting quotation marks around a position doesn't make it any less reasonable. Watch: The other position is just "We have to leave! Uh, we just have to. Things will get better!" and then "Oh, but it would be much better now if we had left!

Just because not wanting pull out is a position held by the same scumbags who said "We're going coz of WMDs" and then "Oh, yeah, no that was just to get public support, but it was the right thing to do, look, we liberated them!" doesn't make it less reasonable, either.

 

[Random]

What were the mistakes exactly? Apart from not realising the extent to which the people of Iraq like to blow each other up?

-Pushing for intelligence based on pre-determined conclusions.

-Invading Iraq based on that intelligence.

-Invading Iraq with too few troops.

-Invading Iraq with no planning for the post-invasion era.

-Failing to prevent looting and destruction of a wide variety of infrastructures in the first few days after the fall of the regime.

-Disbanding the Iraqi army, thus creating hundreds of thousands of unemployed Iraqi males with military training and weapons.

-Permitting Abu Gharib and other assorted prisoner scandals that severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East.

-Constructing massive permanent bases in Iraq, giving locals the quite justified view that we will never leave.

-Failing to act to prevent widescale fraud and profiteering which has been and is costing us and Iraq untold billions of dollars.

And so on and so forth…

 

[Tricky]

Doesn't this sound just slightly cognitive dissonant to you? You were against the war, but believe we have to finish it?

No, not really (as Mycroft has already said). I'm in the same boat. I was 100% against the war precicely because we would have to finish it. It was always a mess over there, but when we stepped in, it became our mess and (to a large degree) our responsibility.

However, it becomes more and more obvious that we cannot finish it. At this point about the only way to "finish" it would be to give overwhelming power to one of the factions so they could subjugate the others and "win" the civil war. Of course for that, we would need a strongman who could intimidate all the lesser factions, like um... hrm... well, there must be somebody like that around.

So I'm with Mycroft philosophically about the need to finish what we started, but I cannot see any practical way to do this.

 

[Tricky]

I as well. The war was a mistake. The misrepresentations/spin leading us into war was a grave, heinous mistake. Leaving Iraq prematurely would also be a mistake.

But unfortunately, it will be "premature" pretty much no matter when we leave.

Remember what Joshua, the computer in the movie, Wargames said, "The only winning move is not to play."

 

[marksman]

But unfortunately, it will be "premature" pretty much no matter when we leave.

As of yet, I do not agree with that assessment. Maybe in the future I will come to believe that our staying is worse than our immediate withdrawal.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It's not a matter of only what Saddam possessed (WMDs, allegedly),

Correct.

but whether or not he had the will and the ability to deliver WMDs.

Incorrect. The issue was whether he was violating the terms of the cease fire. If countries can flout the terms of cease fires at will, that makes cease fires pointless, which in turn imperils the entire world.

 

[Pardalis]

Isn't the expression "in a state of disbelief" another way of saying "cognitive dissonance"?

 

[peptoabysmal]

-Pushing for intelligence based on pre-determined conclusions.

-Invading Iraq based on that intelligence.

I agree somewhat, but you are ignoring Saddam's full history if you think there was not great cause for concern. How about those who so easily believe that the Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants were more likely used to produce hydrogen, even though better, cheaper, legal commercial units are available? I think the deliberate disinformation effort goes both ways.

-Invading Iraq with too few troops.

I disagree. The modern military is sophisticated and efficient. Remember that we took Iraq in a couple of weeks with record setting low collateral damage? I think the mistake we made was in not declaring martial law immediately following the fall of Baghdad.
Now, maintaining a long term occupation with this degree of insurgency is extremely difficult and we should have more military to rotate in and out of Iraq, but it has nothing to do with the invasion. What are our options, bring back the draft? Would you support that?

-Invading Iraq with no planning for the post-invasion era.

Agreed. The planning for post-invasion was inadequate.

-Failing to prevent looting and destruction of a wide variety of infrastructures in the first few days after the fall of the regime.

Yes. See above.

-Disbanding the Iraqi army, thus creating hundreds of thousands of unemployed Iraqi males with military training and weapons.

It was much harder to do it ourselves than rely on a brutal regime to maintain order.

-Permitting Abu Gharib and other assorted prisoner scandals that severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East.

These things happened, but permitted? The prosecutions against the perpetrators would indicate not.

-Constructing massive permanent bases in Iraq, giving locals the quite justified view that we will never leave.

All they would have to do is stop killing each other and us and I'll bet we would be out of there in a big hurry. When you are under attack, is it not desirable to create a defensible position?

-Failing to act to prevent wide scale fraud and profiteering which has been and is costing us and Iraq untold billions of dollars.

Is this a Halliburton reference?

And so on and so forth…

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

 

[Tricky]

As of yet, I do not agree with that assessment. Maybe in the future I will come to believe that our staying is worse than our immediate withdrawal.

I'm still on the fence there myself. I want us to do the right thing, but the more I see of what is going on, the harder a time I have believing that our presence is a moderating influence. Still, I would like it to be that we have a role in bringing the country to (relatively) peaceful agreement. But we're either not doing it right, or it is impossible for us to do. I hope the former (and we'll fix it) but I fear the latter.

 

[Cain]

What were the mistakes exactly? Apart from not realising the extent to which the people of Iraq like to blow each other up?

I think Random addressed it.

Fair enough, but if the public support something, that still doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

True, but "ought" implies "can." Maybe we "ought" to do it, but it's moot if we can't. The administration's fear-mongering, combined with the predictable rally-around-the-flag effect when troops are in harm's way, bought the president short term public support. But you can't fool all the people all the time, and Bush has to earn public approval. He's not doing a good job, in part for the other two reasons you glossed over.

Putting quotation marks around a position doesn't make it any less reasonable. Watch: The other position is just "We have to leave! Uh, we just have to. Things will get better!" and then "Oh, but it would be much better now if we had left!

Just because not wanting pull out is a position held by the same scumbags who said "We're going coz of WMDs" and then "Oh, yeah, no that was just to get public support, but it was the right thing to do, look, we liberated them!" doesn't make it less reasonable, either.

No, you're missing the point. The "scumbags," the people who have dominated the discussion dismiss the idea of withdrawal. Without any slogans ("when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down") what conditions will permit a U.S. withdrawal? What is the goal? Can we have a time table? Prior to the war didn't Rumsfeld say this thing could take six days, six weeks, or maybe even six months?

AV writes:

Incorrect. The issue was whether he was violating the terms of the cease fire. If countries can flout the terms of cease fires at will, that makes cease fires pointless, which in turn imperils the entire world.

This strikes me as not only ad hoc but delusional. The United States consistently violates international law. What kind of signal does "pre-emptive" (actually preventive) war send? Or violating international law in order to (putatively) enforce it? Ah, but you would have me believe the world was "imperiled" prior to a poorly planned, ineptly prosecuted invasion predicated on prevaracation. Nice.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The United States consistently violates international law.

No, it doesn't.

What kind of signal does "pre-emptive" (actually preventive) war send?

It wasn't pre-emptive war. The war started after Iraq invaded Kuwait. The invasion was simply a continuation of that war, a war which was never concluded due to the terms of the cease fire not being executed. The invasion was not preemptive either, as it occurred after the violations of the cease fire.

Or violating international law in order to (putatively) enforce it?

That's a transparent strawman. My position does not rest on some nebulous concept of "international law". Rather, it rests on the quite simple idea that if no valid peace treaty or cease fire exists terminating a state of war, then that state of war persists.

Ah, but you would have me believe the world was "imperiled" prior to a poorly planned, ineptly prosecuted invasion predicated on prevaracation.

I am not defending the particular execution of the invasion, merely the principle that the US had a firm basis on which to invade Iraq. Suggesting that because the invasion has created security issues for the US, there were NO security issues prior to the invasion is remarkably fallacious arguing, even for you.

 

[Mephisto]

Isn't the expression "in a state of disbelief" another way of saying "cognitive dissonance"?

If you say so.

You're trying awfully hard to goad me into an argument, aren't you?

 

[Pardalis]

If you say so.

You're trying awfully hard to goad me into an argument, aren't you?

Well isn't this a discussion forum? All you do is start threads and post links that always have to do with some leftist BS and you never comment on anything.

I'm neither from the left or the right, but I just think this is troll-like behaviour. I dislike that.

 

[Mephisto]

Well isn't this a discussion forum? All you do is start threads and post links that always have to do with some leftist BS and you never comment on anything.

I'm neither from the left or the right, but I just think this is troll-like behaviour. I dislike that.

Well if you're neither right nor left what do you classify as "leftist BS?"

BTW, I've got more posts than you do; is that evidence that I never comment on anything?

 

[Pardalis]

Well if you're neither right nor left what do you classify as "leftist BS?"

There's lef wing BS, and right wing BS. I just don't like people with political biases (to which I am not immune to, but try to stay clear of).

BTW, I've got more posts than you do; is that evidence that I never comment on anything?

OK, I apologise. But let's take this thread for example. What do you think of the OP "cognitive dissonance and the Right"? Since it is a thread you started, you must have some opinion on it?

I personnaly don't think conservatives are more proned to cognitive dissonance than liberals, and I don't trust S. M. Dixon to have any credentials or authority in psychology to make such a diagnosis. I believe it is a blatant politically motiviated article.

 

[Mycroft]

I personnaly don't think conservatives are more proned to cognitive dissonance as liberals, and I don't trust S. M. Dixon to have any credentials or authority in psychology to make such a diagnosis. I believe it is a blatant politically motiviated article.

Well, the real issue here isn't that one side or the other is more prone to cognitive dissonance, but that it's projected on to people you disagree with.

For example, Mephisto asks me if my view, having been against the Iraq war before it started but wanting to see it through now that it has, causes me cognitive dissonance. It doesn't, of course, but what he's really saying is he would feel cognitive dissonance in my place.

What would cause me cognitive dissonance would be if I had argued against going to war with Iraq on humanitarian grounds (I don’t want to hurt Iraqis) then later to argue we should pull out and leave them to their fate. To me that is a contradiction, but apparently to others it doesn’t seem as a contradiction.

 

[Pardalis]

What would cause me cognitive dissonance would be if I had argued against going to war with Iraq on humanitarian grounds (I don’t want to hurt Iraqis) then later to argue we should pull out and leave them to their fate. To me that is a contradiction, but apparently to others it doesn’t seem as a contradiction.

That's exactly what I am thinking. That's the problem when people are too politically motivated. Once you afiliate yourself to one side, you make theses contradictory statements, these fallacies without knowing it. That's because you have to remain faithful to the ideas ofyour side, and to see every argument of the other side as wrong, no matter what. The left is anti-war, so of course having soldiers in Iraq is unacceptable for them. But the reality is that the war in Iraq has happened, wether anybody likes it or not. It's a done deal. What we need to focus on is what do we do from here.