Are we losing the war on terrorism?

The World
I viewed a documentary about SouthEast Asia,mostly about Indonesia. The growth of Al Q. and supporters is at a high rate.
All it will take is one strike from Al Q. in the US and Martial Law will be declared. If it's within the next 10 months, no elections and goodby The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

The invasion of Iraq and the Occupation has made America less safe. It has caused an increase in anti-American attitudes world wide.

I am real nervous that another attack is forthcoming this year.

US airstrikes in Syria will merely foment more anti-American venom and possibly spur an American attack.

Seems that the Dubya Admin. just never learns.

Since nobody named the specific series of fallacies that the "we haven't been attacked so we are winning" argument employs I'll do a quickie.

It uses several Non Causa Pro Causa fallacies in this case stating that something is the cause of a situation that in all liklihood would have existed without the cause being touted.

The specific type of false cause fallacy being used is either a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

There is little difference between the two. One is a false statement of cause due to mere sequence and the other a falase statement of cause due to paralellism.

For example, if I were to pick my nose and fart at the same time 3 times in succession and argue that picking my nose causes me to fart I would run a great risk of commiting a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and would have to demonstrate the cause, and not use mere coincidence as the "proof".

As ebrown notes a 3 year period without foreign-based terrorist attacks on American soil is the rule, and not the exception.

So pointing to that as a sign that we are "winning" the war is using the most circumstantial of evidence and in a reckless way.

NOTE: I make no comment on whether we are "winning" this war, merely on the arguments being posited to say so.

Some of the arguments saying we are losing the war are not much better, but then again, when you are discussing this type of "war" this is predictable.

Thw "war on terror" is a metaphor. It makes more sense to argue about specific wars.

For example, we won the war in Afghanistan. We won the war in Iraq.

In both situations there are things that I think need to be done to satify my criteria but those are clearly "won" wars.

The "war" on terror, however is a metaphor being treated far too seriously, and it's no surprise that much of the arguments about it are either irrelevant or fallacious.

Craven, I may have to think about that some more, but I think you're right: this is an example of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:



To give another example:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

In the above example, substitute "Dubya" for "Homer," "terrorists" for "bears," "homeland security" for "bear patrol," and "anyone with an ounce of common sense" for "Lisa."

Excellent, joe. That may help even some of the slower thinkers in the group understand the concept...

Hmmmm Donuts!

Damn, Joe, that was good!