SOME TRAINING IN RIGOROUS AND CRITICAL THINKING

This is advanced stuff, C2 level (or more!). But you might be interested in
having a look. In an interview with a German publication, former US
secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield, offers some very clear examples
of fuzzy logic with I think- clear manipulative intentions. This kind of
thing is mostly the normal way in politics, so dont be shocked. Here we
can see faults in logical thinking (fallacies), accurate thinking (confusion of
fact and non fact) and other techniques in manipulation. When one joins
training in critical thinking and some basic background knowledge, one
can easily spot these techniques. It takes some more training in showing
them articulately. Authors like Chomsky or Chris Hedges, in America, are
masters in showing manipulation and falseness for what it is. Reading
their books and articles can give goor training in this regard.

We copy the whole interview, although only one part (in blue) is used for
our purposes. Underlined are the references to which explanations (in
bold red) are offered.


Rumsfeld Interview:
'A Leader Should Be Careful about Drawing Red Lines'
David Hume Kennerly/ DER SPIEGEL (September 16, 2013)
Donald Rumsfeld is no stranger to intervening abroad. In an interview with SPIEGEL,
the former US secretary of defense explains why Obama was right to delay military
action in Syria and why the president must be wary of Russian President Putin.
SPIEGEL: You recently published a book called "Rumsfeld's Rules," which contains
pearls of wisdom you collected during your five decades of public service and passed
on to co-workers and employees. One rule says: "The perfect battle is the one that
does not have to be fought." So, President Barack Obama did the right thing by calling
off a military strike in Syria?
Rumsfeld: Yes, he did do the right thing. When I look at his current predicament --
Russian President Vladimir Putin lecturing President Obama on American
exceptionalism and offering his plan for supervision of Syria's chemical weapons -- I
think also of another rule, which says: "Never assume the other fellow will not do
something you wouldn't do." Mr. Putin is very clever, and President Obama will need
to keep that in mind.
SPIEGEL: You mean to say Obama is naive to believe that putting Syrian chemical
weapons under United Nations supervision can be a solution?
Rumsfeld: We don't yet know the details or who would do the supervising, but my
recollection is that the Soviets or the Russians gave Syria most of their weapons
arsenal. And it is not clear to me that Russia itself has fully complied with all their
obligations with respect to chemical weapons. Therefore, a question could be: Might it
possibly amount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop?
SPIEGEL: By accepting Putin's offer, Obama could move away from an unpopular and
ill-advised military strike. What is bad about that?
Rumsfeld: I think moving away from his proposed military action could be a good
thing. President Obama accepted the Putin proposal because there were no good
options left. I suspect the president wishes he had not gotten to this point. I think he
might have been better off if he had helped some of the non-radical elements among
the Syrian rebels early on, not with US troops, but with weapons, intelligence and
humanitarian support. Without doing that, the factions that seem to be prevailing, at
least to this date, are the ones that are the best organized, the most disciplined, the
toughest, and the best financed -- some of which are radical Islamists, even though the
Islamists most likely do not represent a majority in that country.
SPIEGEL: Aside from a military strike, are there any good options left when it comes to
Syria?
Rumsfeld: I do not know. I was not able to see President Obama's speech on Syria on
Tuesday, but it sounded from the press reports that he was of two minds, and that his
speech reflected that.
SPIEGEL: Obama has tried to engage in public debate rather than rush into a war. Was
it the right decision to ask Congress for permission?
Rumsfeld: Yes it was. Most US presidents since World War II have led military actions
without a declaration of war by Congress, though most, if not all, have properly
consulted and sought support from Congress. That is the wise thing to do. The
president, however, found himself in a difficult position because he brought his
proposal before Congress at a time when support of the House of Representatives
seemed unlikely and the majority in our country was opposed to his military proposal,
according to the polls.
SPIEGEL: So if we understand correctly, you are saying that it was not smart of the
president to ask Congress in the first place?
Rumsfeld: That is not what I said. My point is that it is not a wise move if you lack a
vision with sufficient clarity to gain majority support in the country and the Congress.
As President of the United States, it is unwise to go to Congress to ask for support for
the use of force and to be defeated. I believe such an action by the Congress would
have been unprecedented. And if a president can't gain support in the US Congress, we
should not be surprised that gaining support from the nations of the world would be
just as difficult.
SPIEGEL: But a democratically elected president cannot simply govern against the will
of his own people. And the American public has made it unmistakably clear that they
are tired of wars.
Rumsfeld: That is true. Every country should be tired of going to war. War is a terrible
thing, but that is the reason why a leader should be careful about drawing red lines. If I
had been in Congress, as much as I would be inclined naturally to be supportive of a
president, any president, I would have voted no, had the issue come to a vote.
SPIEGEL: Even if you were to look at the pictures and videos from Syria apparently
showing men, women and even children dying as a result of the use of chemical
weapons?
Rumsfeld: Of course it is terrible that hundreds of Syrians have died, including
hundreds of children, reportedly as a result of the use of chemical weapons. But it is
also terrible that more than 100,000 Syrians have died as a result of the use of other
weapons -- rockets, guns, bombs and artillery.
SPIEGEL: As Obama said in his speech, it is part of "America's exceptionalism" that the
oldest democracy in the world does not just sit on the sidelines and watch when a
dictator gasses children.
Rumsfeld: I would suggest that it is an equal responsibility for other nations, such as
Germany, France or England and others with capabilities.
Cynical contradiction with what they did in the past. Why was it not in the case or
Afghanistan or Iraq? At that time the US announced they were ready to go ahead
even without international support. Of course, in those cases there were very great
geopolitical and econmic interests for US petrol, in Iraq; gas and minerals in
Afghanistan. In the case of Syria the geopolitical interest can be fulifilled by the very
desedtabilization of the country and area, which might offer an opportunity against
Iran.
SPIEGEL: Why did Obama have such big problems gaining the support of other
countries for a military strike?
Rumsfeld: I believe the reason he has had difficulty gaining support both in the US and
from other countries is because he has not explained what he hopes to do, what the
mission would be and what he hopes to accomplish. To gain support in our Congress
and from other nations requires clarity, an acceptable mission and an explicit outcome.
There is no mention of truth or ethical validity, just of pure form. So he gives the
impression that following those lines of advice is the essence of gaining support from
other countries, which shows the validity of the iniciative. This is the fallacy of taking
form for content.
SPIEGEL: You cannot be serious. George W. Bush, who you served as Secretary of
Defense, may have been clear about what he wanted, but most Americans now see
the wars he started as being misguided. That would seem to be the real reason that
the willingness in the US and the rest of the world to go to war is so low.
Rumsfeld: Such sentiments among Americans are hardly a new phenomenon. After
World War I, for example, there was widespread war weariness and opposition to the
US getting involved in World War II. Americans were reluctant and didn't want to go to
war again in Europe. Similarly, there was no appetite for the Korean War in the United
States, or the Vietnam War.
He puts all wars in the same basket, irrespective of their ethical or historical context.
He minimizes the oppsition to the wars of Iraq or Afghanistan by making a
generalization.
SPIEGEL: From the American perspective, World War II was a noble engagement that
paid off in the long run. The same can hardly be said of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld: To be sure, the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq are uncertain. But, if you
look closely, schools are open, they have a free press, have drafted a constitution and
have had free elections. Afghanistan was torn after years of occupation by the Soviets,
a long civil war and the vicious reign of the Taliban. Today, the people there at least
have a chance for a better life. So too in Iraq, with the Butcher of Baghdad gone, a man
who used chemical weapons against his own people, as well as his neighbors.
He uses selective information, among a sea of negative data, to create a false
impression. He uses cliches, like a chance for a better life. He resorts to
propagandistic images such as Butcher of Baghdad to elicit emotional responses.
SPIEGEL: That sounds almost cynical given the thousands of people who lost their lives
and billions of dollars those wars cost. And we still cannot be sure that these countries
have a better future. But the US is now leaving them to their own devices.
Rumsfeld: Call it what you will, but my view is that we aren't a country that can go into
another nation and do nation building. That's up to the people in those countries.
There are people in the United States who think we do have the ability to nation build.
I personally do not. We can help, to be sure, but they will need to do it in their own
way.
Use of pure cynicism, as the argument hides the reality of its very opposite.
Whatever the appearances, economically speaking, countries suchs as Iraq are never
left to do it in their own way. That was precisely the reason of the attack: to get a
firm control of the petrol and to earn millions for the companies dealing with
reconstruction after the war. Politically speaking that independence is also more
apparent than real, except in very controlled contexts. The US has shown remarkable
power in starting, maintaining or overthrowing regimes, based on the fundamental
criterium of their usefulness.
SPIEGEL: If you go into a country like Iraq and change a regime to democratize the
region, is it not your duty to assist in the rebuilding of the nation?
Rumsfeld: We can certainly help, but the purpose of the war in Iraq was regime
change, not nation building. I worried about the word "democracy." Elections don't
make a democracy. Adolf Hitler was initially elected. More recently, the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt was democratically elected. Neither resulted in democracies.
He and others like him use democracy and the defense of it as a useful and powerful
propagandistic tool, but when it is convenient, they cast a shadow on it. Hitler is a
useful quote, as it is morally self-eveident. To add to that the case of Egypt is a
subliminal association against islamism, as bothe cases are totally different.
Anyway, what about putting into question Americal strategic interference into
democracies in many parts of the world?
SPIEGEL: You seem to have a selective memory. The biggest problem was not which
word was used, but that the Iraq war was started under false premises. And this is
clearly the reason why Obama is having trouble gaining support for a military strike in
Syria at the moment.
Rumsfeld: You can state and restate your opinions, but our current president cannot
blame the Bush administration for every unfavorable situation that exists. Every
president when he is elected has to live with the pluses and minuses his predecessor
leaves, which includes benefits as well as burdens.
If the interviewer presses him, then he is restating his opinions. The rest of the
answer is not responding to the question, but moving away.
SPIEGEL: And what exactly are the advantages that Obama has as a successor to
George W. Bush?
Rumsfeld: Your question suggests there are none. I would suggest he has had the
advantage of the structures put in place to deal with terrorism in the aftermath of the
attacks of September 11, 2001. These are the capabilities President Obama is using
today to fight terrorists, almost without change. Is he disadvantaged because of
expenses and experiences that occurred before he was elected? Sure, as I've said,
every president inherits both the benefits and the burdens left by their predecessors. A
president can't go back in time. The question is how he manages going forward.
Well, here he is right, because Obama had let himself be caught in the same
dynamics, using drone attacks, continuing Guantanamo, etc. Cleverly, he is
emphasizing this aspect of Obamas policies, which are a continuation of Bushs; in
this way there is a tacit endorsement of Bush war on terrorism.
SPIEGEL: If it is so important to take responsibility, why don't you accept that Obama is
limited in what he can do in Syria due to what the Bush Administration did in Iraq? He
cannot convince Americans and international partners about the necessity to strike
militarily in Syria because America's credibility was massively damaged when it went to
war in Iraq under a false premise, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction.
Rumsfeld: The intelligence existed. It was looked at by President George W. Bush. He
found it persuasive. Secretary of State Colin Powell looked at the intelligence and
found it persuasive, as he indicated in his speech to the world at the UN -- so, too, did
Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, as well as Senator Jay Rockefeller, all members
of the other political party. Other nations, including the British government, looked at
the same intelligence and came to a similar conclusion. Secretary Colin Powell, for
example, was highly experienced dealing with intelligence. He did not lie. He told the
world what he believed was true.
He uses iconic figures and symbols which are no longer true, but that hold a strong
impact culturally: one is the fact that the president decides, his image in the oval
office having the last word. In a case such as this, it is pretty sure that this is not the
case. The focus of power has switched to great influence groups and a decision such
as this could hardly be taken by Bush. Another technique is the use of a figure who is
morally sound for the public in this case Colin Powell- as a way to justify something
which is not inherently right. The point is not if Powell or other believed in the
evidences but if they were used as a completely insufficient or downright false
foundation for a decision, an excuse, which had other real motivations.
SPIEGEL: Because they were not told what seems obvious in retrospect: The
information on weapons of mass destruction was perhaps not fabricated, but it was
cherry-picked.
Rumsfeld: I can understand when people nowadays say it turned out this information
was not correct. But at the time, the president, Secretary Powell, Republicans and
Democrats in Congress and experts in many countries all found it persuasive. I don't
believe Colin Powell cherry-picked the intelligence as you allege.
SPIEGEL: Do you understand why the Europeans are so outraged over NSA spying?
Rumsfeld: My impression is there are a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats in
the US, as well as people overseas, who are concerned about the NSA programs.
Should people be concerned about their privacy? You bet.
SPIEGEL: Are you?
Rumsfeld: Of course. Nobody wants to think that everything they do or say is under
surveillance.
SPIEGEL: Do you believe that those programs are necessary for national security?
Rumsfeld: I've been out of government since 2006. I don't know anything about the
details of the programs or their value.
SPIEGEL: If Obama really fails on Syria, is his presidency basically over? You yourself
recently said he was the weakest president in your "adult lifetime."
Rumsfeld: No. He has three more years as president. His presidency is not just about
Syria. The president has to provide leadership to gain support. It's not too late. He will
need to lead. It is worth reminding us all that being president is a tough job for
anybody, and particularly so in the information age. Prior US presidents had more time
to think things through. Things happen much faster today. There's such a glut of
information. Anything a president says or does is picked up on the Internet or the 24/7
news media and criticized almost instantly. Someone told me the other day that at his
press conference at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, the President said "uh" 121
times. Clearly, he was trying to think through what he wanted to say. It is best if
leaders have the time to do that before a press conference begins. Leaders persuade
through their words and as such their words need to be measured and well chosen. It
is a tough job.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary, thank you for this interview.