FALSE EITHER OR: A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGY IN THE CONTEXT OF WAR IN GENERAL AND THE WAR ON TERROR IN AFGHANISTAN IN PARTICULAR

Shuja Ahmad*

Abstract

This article argues that false either or (false dilemma, false bifurcation, false dichotomy) is a commonly committed fallacy in the context of war in general and the War on Terror in Afghanistan in particular. It mainly focuses on the discourse that was generated soon after the incidents of 9/11. Committing this fallacy, the politicians/leaders presented an oversimplified picture of the situation portraying that the war can simply be understood as a struggle between two choices: a good choice and a bad choice. This argumentative strategy played an instrumental role in persuading public for war and in blocking criticism and rational thinking. Moreover, after 9/11, this fallacious argumentative strategy restricted any alternative leading to peace through negotiations. Furthermore, in the context of 9/11 this fallacy was repeated over and over again for framing purpose. The entailment effects of this framing had been: the world has been divided into two halves, there is no neutral ground: not siding one will put a person/institution/nation in the other half.

Key Words: Argumentative Strategy, Fallacy, Framing, War

Understanding False Either Or/ False Dilemma

This fallacious argumentative move occurs when an arguer offers an incomplete range of alternatives, normally two, in such a way that it appears as if no other alternative exists, and then one is asked to opt for one of them. If one chooses one of them, it is tantamount to accept that these choices are the only choices and no other alternatives are available. Madsen Pirie defines it as,
The presentation of only two alternatives where others exist is called the fallacy of bifurcation… it presents an 'either/or' situation when in reality there is a range of options.

A false dilemma is not always fallacious. If the offered choices/ alternatives are the only alternatives and one has to choose one, then the dilemma is not false. However, if other alternatives exist then the dilemma is false. The following examples will make the point straight:
Either ‘A is equal to B’ or ‘A is not equal to B’
It is not the case that ‘A is equal to B’
Therefore, ‘A is not equal to B’ - is valid. (Disjunctive Syllogism) 
However,
Either today is Monday or today is Tuesday
Today is not Monday
Therefore, today is Tuesday-Commits fallacy of false either or.

The problem in the second argument is, ‘today is Monday’ and ‘today is Tuesday’ are not the only alternatives; there are other alternatives too. Both the statements will be false if ‘today is Friday’ or any other day.
It is a commonly committed fallacy in political discourse when arguments are forwarded presenting limited alternatives/choices; usually one of the alternative/choice is preferred by the arguer.
Hurley opines, 
…in most cases the arguer expresses only the disjunctive premise and leaves it to the reader or listener to supply the missing statement…

Love Pakistan or leave Pakistan.
Either it is white or black.
You are with us or against us.
All commits fallacy of false either or.

False Either Or/ False Dilemma in The Context of War in General

The following discussion aims to establish that false either or is a commonly committed fallacy in the context of war in general and the war on terror in particular. Committing this fallacy, politicians (people at the helm of affairs) attempt to persuade people that there are only two choices/alternatives/policies, ignoring the rest of the choices/alternatives/ policies, and then they argue for one of the choice claiming that it is the right choice.
To begin with an argument forwarded by President Roosevelt is taken into account.
All of us Americans, of all opinions, are faced with the choice between the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of world which Hitler and his hordes would impose upon us.

The President argued that all American people, whatever their opinion may be, have only two choices: either to live in a world they want to live in or to live in a world which is dominated by Hitler and his gang. The argument presents an oversimplified picture: we are left with only two choices- either fight and defeat Hitler or do not fight (perhaps, as critics were suggesting) and be dominated by Hitler. As if there is no other option. The most possible entailment effect of the argument may be: people who do not support the war and are in favor of negotiations/peace actually want Hitler to conquer us and impose his world on us. Arguing this way, politicians attempt to block criticism.
Hitler, while declaring war on America, argued that fighting this war is a great duty. He informed Germans about provocative steps taken by the President of America. Germany does not want war with America, it is America who is waging war on Germany and Germans should stand and teach America a lesson, he argued:
But anybody who tries to evade this duty has no claim to be regarded in our midst as a fellow German. Just as we were unmercifully hard in our struggle for power we shall be unmercifully hard in the struggle to maintain our nation. At a time when thousands of our best men are dying nobody must expect to live who tries to depreciate the sacrifices made at the Front. Immaterial under what camouflage he tries to disturb this German Front, to undermine the resistance of our people, to weaken the authority of the regime, to sabotage the achievements of the Home Front, he shall die for it!

The unstated premise in this argument is: this war is a duty. Fighting this war, for Germans, is performing national duty: either one is performing this great duty or one is avoiding it. Moreover, anybody who escapes from this war will not be considered a German- this excludes critics from the class of Germans and, perhaps, put them in the class of enemies. Moreover, this argument involves a clear threat for those, who in anyway, devalue the ‘sacrifices made at the front’. All those Germans, who are not with Hitler in this war actually: disturb German Front, weaken the resistance of German people, weaken the authority of the regime and damage the achievements of the Home Front. They are traitors and do not want Germans to win the war against her enemies who want to destroy Germany and the whole Europe.  They shall die for it (read, shall be killed). This argument also involves a clear appeal to force.
Richard Nixon explaining his Vietnam policy, argued:
.… we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary -- a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom. I have chosen the second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way. It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace -- not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world. In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America…..  

Many fallacies have been committed in this argument. The context of this augment is that the President wants to change American policy regarding Vietnam. Although, the President has committed that America will keep on supporting her allies but instead of committing more troops and staying long in Vietnam he wants to train South Vietnamese to fight their own war to save their freedom- Vietnamization. He puts forth this argument: to convince people for his policies, to demonstrate that America is not losing Vietnam War and to silence the critics.
Following analysis of the argument makes it clear that President Nixon in the aforementioned script argued that America is left with only two choices:
All American immediately, precipitately, withdraw from Vietnam, without thinking of the effects that action can produce. 
Or
Through negotiations, search for a just peace, if possible, or through Vietnamization make South Vietnamese stronger, enabling them to defend their own freedom, if necessary. 
Obviously the first choice is not acceptable, since wisdom demands that people first see the effects and then go for a choice and the effect of the first choice is, ‘allies will lose confidence in America’- appeal to bad consequence; this rules out the first choice. Conceivably, a large number of citizenry will go for the second one. Second choice also comprises two choices. The first one is negotiations. Although it seems to be the best one, but the President has already ruled out negotiations. Hence, the President concluded that the only choice left is Vietnamization, which he believes, is the ‘right way’, otherwise, the allies of America will lose confidence in America- Appeal to bad/negative consequences . Any criticism against the President’s policy would mean: the critic does not want the ‘right way’, and wants American allies to lose confidence in America- poisoning the well. Moreover, the President, committing fallacy of appeal to good consequences argued that his policy will bring peace in Pacific and in the world.
This brief discussion reveals that false either is a common argumentative strategy in the context of war.

False Either Or in the Context of the War on Terror in Afghanistan

As discussed earlier false either or is a common fallacy in times of war. In the context of the War on Terror this fallacious argumentative strategy was instrumental in persuading public for war and in blocking criticism. Moreover, after 9/11, it restricted any alternative leading to peace through negotiations.
Osama and his followers, after 9/11, argued again and again that the world has been divided into two halves: believers and infidels. They claimed that it is the religious duty of all the Muslims to take part in jihad against America. For example, on 7th October 2001 Osama argued that,
These events have divided the whole world into two sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels...

The argument had been: after 9/11 the world has been divided into two sides: believers and infidels, perhaps there is no neutral ground- one cannot remain neutral. Since Osama is fighting infidels, those who are not on Osama’s side are actually siding infidels- they are infidels too. This reveals that only two choices are available: Be a believer and fight the other side or do not fight the other side and be an infidel. Moreover, if one is not fighting for Osama s/he is supposed to be fighting against him for these are the only two choices. Such argumentation ignores/suppresses other alternatives including the possibility of remaining neutral. It also persuades people for war and blocks criticism.
The most crucial entailment effect of this argumentative strategy is that it blocks the possibility of any neutral party- A party that can bring the opponents on a negotiation table. Perhaps, this was the reason that after 9/11even states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could not play the role of neutral negotiators and could not stop the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
The only country that can be declared an Islamic state, according to Osama, is Afghanistan for he informed,  
Only Afghanistan is an Islamic country. Pakistan follows the English law. I don’t consider Saudi Arabia an Islamic country.

The only place, in the whole world, ruled by believers is Afghanistan. This framing excludes even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from the land of believers.
In the same interview he said,
Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims.

War had been persuasively defined as, ‘a great war of Islamic history’- the fairy tale is that the world has been divided into two halves: the big powers (read enemies of Muslims) on one side and Muslims on the other. Either one is a Muslim or an enemy of Muslims, was the dilemma before the people. However, the truth had been that many Muslim countries were against his policies and actually they were in the other half.
In the same interview, Osama further argued that even the Muslim scholars have been divided into two groups: those who support infidels for their personal gains and those who are true scholars who support Jihad against America. The dilemma was: either one is a true scholar supporting him/ Jihad on America or a fake scholar supporting and helping infidels for personal gains. A very effective argument to silence criticism that was coming from the scholars who were against him, since entailment effect of this argument was: the scholars who do not support Jihad against America are actually motivated by their personal gains; a true Muslim should not listen to them.
President Bush and his allies committed this fallacy, in the context of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, for a number of purposes such as: Making a grand coalition; threatening those countries reluctant to join coalition i.e., wanted to remain neutral; to declare pro war policies of US good/heroic; declaring US enemies terrorist/evil and the critics friends of terrorists etc. Moreover, this fallacy was committed over and over again for framing purpose . The framing effect was instrumental in persuading people that the world has been divided into two halves and there is no neutral ground, hence, no nation can remain neutral.
Winkler in Encroachments on state Sovereignty: The Argumentation Strategies of the Bush Administration opines, after 9/11 President Bush presented only two alternatives to Taliban: either to become an ally of US or Al- Qaeda, erasing the possibility of a compromise solution as an alternative. President Bush and his team, he argues, using arguments by association and dissociation provided Taliban a choice to either hand over Osama and all other terrorists or they will be treated as friends of terrorists. Moreover, these choices were not open to negotiations.
President Bush not only used ‘either or’ for other nations of the world, he used the same for American citizenry too. Dianna Taylor informs that the President presented two choices before American people: evil or lesser evil. Not joining President Bush was dubbed as evil and joining the President meant compromising civil liberties and violence in the name of national security- lesser evil.  
Robert Ivie and Oscar Giner opine that the President had been arguing that the alternative of fighting and defeating evil enemy is,
… submitting to evil, to become evil, to be exposed to evil.

The following discourse that was generated soon after 9/11 has been taken into account to show the way false either or was committed and was framed in the context of the War on Terror in Afghanistan.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush argued,
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

It is a false either or: either you are with America or with Terrorists. No country can remain neutral, he argued, as if there is no other alternative. In reality, there existed  several other alternatives, such as: a country might had been against Taliban but could have advocated settling of the dispute through diplomatic means; a country could have been an enemy of US but not a friend of Taliban and a country could have opposed both US and Taliban’s policies etc. But the President ignored all other alternatives. In the context of 9/11, this fallacious argument also involved an appeal to force/threat. America was going to root out terrorists of the global reach. If a country was not a part of coalition, then Americans would consider her a part of Axis of Evil. And if a country was a part of Axis of Evil then she would face the consequences.
Tony Blair on October 2, 2001 argued,
There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.

The argument is, since, there is nothing common between civilized people and terrorist; hence, terrorist cannot be argued with, no compromise with them is possible- no negotiation is possible. Moreover, Committing false either or, he argued: either we will defeat them or will be defeated. This fallacious reasoning was very persuasive in the context of 9/11. The message had been that the civilized world cannot afford a defeat. The terrorists were framed to be evil, murderers, ruthless, irrational preying on innocent people, so a defeat by terrorist would put the whole civilized world under the dominance of terror and evil. This way PM Blair attempted to gain support of his public to wage war on Afghanistan and to defeat the terrorists. Anyone criticizing him would be supporting the terrorists.
President Bush on October 4, 2001 once again committed false either or. However, this time he presented limited choice to banks and financial institutes too:
…nations which understand that what happened in New York and Washington could happen to them, as well…. we don't care how you help, just help. Either you're for us, or you're against us. …. we're talking to countries and banks and financial institutions, and saying either you're with us, or against us: cut off their money.

Once again, either you are with us or against us- The President extended his doctrine to banks and financial institutions too. Here one can notice an appeal to fear and bad consequences too: what happened to American cites could happen to any other cities of the world. President Bush presented a scenario that world is in danger. An evil force wants to capture the whole world. Nations of the world have only two choices- either to join President Bush or to join Al Qaeda and Taliban. And those who do not join the President  there will be a consequence- Appeal to force.
Not only President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, but other members of Bush’s administration too were busy generating such arguments. Pervez Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, writes in his book: He and the DG ISI were warned by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage respectively, to either join America or face the consequences. Richard Armitage further warned DG ISI, Pervez Musharraf writes, if we decide not to join USA then we will be bombed back to Stone Age.
President Bush Connected this fallacious reasoning with good versus evil and other fairy tales. In Good versus Evil: Argument to Begin Global War on Terrorism, Sarfraz Khan and Shuja Ahmad argue framing the argument as Good versus Evil ensued other logical fallacies. Moreover, not joining ‘good’ was not an option for the good people of the world.
The President of the United States of America argued:
We've said, not only join the coalition, we've said here's what we expect you to do.  Here is your assignment.… We expect if you're on our team, that we want your performance.  And it's making a difference... This is a war between good and evil… we expect other nations to join us…. This is not a war between our world and their world.  It is a war to save the world.

The argument has been, join President Bush, show performance, and do what the President wants you to do, for he is fighting evil. It is a war that will save the world- a fairy tale that was instrumental in making a coalition. In this speech President Bush’s language seems to be very authoritative and demanding. One can notice this from the metaphor of ‘assignment’. Although, he claimed that terrorists have attacked America because America has been the beacon of freedom and democracy, yet, the President very undemocratically directed other nations: what to do? In case, if a country failed to take the ‘assignment’, it would fall into the class of evil. Consequently, to save the world from evil, America and allies were to fight and defeat such a country. George Lakoff reveals that conservatives, who follow strict father morality, believe that it is immoral to remain weak in the face of evil.
Someone who is morally weak cannot stand up to evil and so eventually commit evil.

On October 6, 2001, President Bush argued,
The United States is presenting a clear choice to every nation:  Stand with the civilized world, or stand with the terrorists.  And for those nations that stand with the terrorists, there will be a heavy price.

Just one day before attacking Afghanistan, the President presented a clear choice to every nation. Joining President Bush would mean joining the civilized world and not joining the President would mean joining terrorists- A classical example of false dilemma. Besides false dilemma, one can notice a blatant threat- he was appealing to force too: if any country decides not to join the coalition she will have to pay a heavy price.
Perhaps, all these arguments shaped the judgment of the nations, for on October 7, the day the actual war started, the President confidently announced,
We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend, Great Britain. Other close friends, including Canada, Australia, Germany and France, have pledged forces as the operation unfolds.  More than 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air transit or landing rights.  Many more have shared intelligence.  We are supported by the collective will of the world.

Actually every nation had to choose between America and the terrorists, according to the President, and they opted for America. Perhaps, it was easier fighting Taliban than America. It seems the President’s fallacious arguments made nations of the world think and act the way the President wanted them too.
The President on the same day again informed the world about his future plan:
Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader.  Every nation has a choice to make.  In this conflict, there is no neutral ground.

The President clearly informed that the battle is broader. Probably, it will extend to other nations who did not join President Bush, for the President had been arguing again and again (for framing purpose): either you are with us or with terrorist, sponsors of outlaws, murderers and killers of innocent people. Moreover, if any country is not with US, there is a heavy price to pay- attack by USA. This argumentative strategy was also instrumental in silencing critics for criticizing President Bush’s doctrine would imply supporting terrorists, outlaws, murderers, evil and villain.
President Bush and his team kept on committing this fallacy even after October 7, 2001.
We gave that regime a choice: Turn over the terrorists, or face your ruin.  They chose unwisely.

Another example of same argumentative strategy coupled with an appeal to force. There are no other options such as: international law, negotiations, diplomacy and involvement of a third country. The choice is either ‘black or white’ as if there is no other color. If the regime i.e., Taliban do not do the way the President wants them to, they will be choosing unwisely.  The price of this ‘unwise’ choice will be their ruin- Appeal to force.
I will put every nation on notice that these duties involve more than sympathy or words.  No nation can be neutral in this conflict, because no civilized nation can be secure in a world threatened by terror.

Once again President’s tone seemed to be very authoritative, he no more wants sympathy he wants actions. He wants nations to do ‘these duties’. The President wants to make this world a safer place- a world where every nation is civilized (civilized in President’s sense of the term). Besides appeal to force and false dilemma, here, he also committed fallacy of bad consequences - Any nation remaining neutral against terrorists will be threatened by terror.
Tony Blair also committing fallacy of bad consequences argued in almost the same manner:
Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater.

 In the context of 9/11 this small argument informed the public that if we do not wage war on Afghanistan then in future we will face greater dangers; therefore, it is in our best interest to wage war otherwise we will face bad consequences.
False either or was also instrumental in the War on Iraq. For example, President Bush on September 23, 2003, while addressing UN general assembly argued:
Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man, and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame. Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground.

The world has been divided into two clearest halves and there is no neutral ground between: those seeking order and those spreading chaos; those working for peace and those for gangsters; those who honor man’s rights and those taking lives of innocent women and children. This reveals that the President and his allies seek order, work for peace and honor and rights of man. They are fighting gangsters, those spreading chaos and killing innocent people without mercy. Since, there is no neutral ground; therefore, either you are on the President’s side or with the terrorists. Those who criticize the President’s policies are also on the other side- on the side of terrorists. Moreover, it is useless to talk and negotiate with ‘gangsters’ and those who ‘spread chose’ and take lives of ‘innocent woman and children’.

Conclusion

This discussion reveals that false either or is a commonly committed fallacy in times of war in general and the War on Terror in particular. In the War on Terror, both sides committed this fallacy many times to persuade people for war and to block criticism and rational thinking. This fallacious argumentative strategy helped politicians/leaders presenting an oversimplified picture of the situation that portrayed that the war can simply be understood as a struggle between two choices: a good choice and a bad choice. It appeared that the whole world has been divided into two halves and the right choice is to side and stay in one of the halves. Moreover, after 9/11, this fallacious argumentative strategy restricted any alternative leading to peace through negotiations for any alternative that could have led to negotiations was not presented. Furthermore, in the context of 9/11 this fallacy was repeated over and over again for framing purpose. The entailment effects of this framing had been: the world has been divided into two halves and there is no neutral ground, hence; not siding one will put a person/institution/nation in the other half. Since one of the sides was arguing that not fighting this war will make one infidel and the other side was arguing that not fighting this war will make one terrorist; perhaps, the public had to choose and decide: Either they are infidels or terrorist.

References

Blair, T., [2001]: Tony Blair Speech’s.  October 2. Retrieved from www.guardian.co.uk accessed on 24/09/2009.
Bush, G.W,[2001]: Address to a Joint Session of the Congress and the American People. September 20.  All documents related to G. W. Bush are available online on http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: No Nation can be Neutral in This Conflict. November 6.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: President Directs Humanitarian Aid To Afghanistan. October 4.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: President Pays Tribute at Pentagon Memorial. October 11.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: President Unveils Back to Work Plan. October 4.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: Presidential Address to the Nation. October 7.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: Radio Address of the President to the Nation. October 6.
Bush, G.W.,[2001]: Radio Address to the Nation. October 7.
Bush, G.W.,[2003]: Address toUnited Nations General Assembly. September 23.
Bush, J.W.,[2001]: Address to a Joint Session of the Congress and the American People. September 20.
Dianna, T.,[2007]: Responsibility And/In Crises, In Presbey Gail M. Ed. Philosophical Perspectives on the War on Terrorism. Rodopi Amsterdam, New York.
Hitler.,[ 1941]: R., Declaration of war on US. Retrieved from http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Adolf_Hitler/index.htm, accessed on 4/03/2010.
Hurley, P. J., [2003]: A Concise Introduction to Logic. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Ivie, R. and Oscar, G., [2007]: Hunting the Devil: Democracy’s Rhetorical Impulse to War, In Presidential Studies, Quarterly. Accessed on 30/04/2008.
Khan, S., and Ahmad, S.,[2009]: Good Versus Evil: Argument to Begin Global War on Terrorism, In Central Asia, no.64. Area Study Centre, University of Peshawar, Peshawar.
Lakoff, G., [1996]: Moral Politics- What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mir, H., Osama Claims He Has Nukes: If US Uses N- Bombs It Will Get Same Response, In The Daily Dawn.Karachi, dated 10/11/2001. Retrieved from www.dawn.com ,  accessed on 22/11/2009.
Musharraf, P.,[2006]: In the Line of Fire. Simon & Schuster, UK .
Nixon, R., [1969]: Vietnamization: War in Vietnam Speech, Address to the Nation. November 3. Retrieved from http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Richard_Nixon/2.htm, accessed on 4/03/210.
Osama Bin Laden, [2001]: Osama Bin Laden Speeches, October 7. Retrieved from http://www.september11news.com/OsamaSpeeches.htm, accessed on 22/01/2010.
Pirie, M., [2006]: How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Roosevelt, F., [1941]: The Forward March Of Hitler And Of Hitlerism Can Be Stopped -- And It Will Be Stopped. Retrieved from http://www.usmm.org/fdr/kearny.html, accessed on 16/03/2010
Simple Framing. Retrieved from http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/index.html, accessed on 10/12/2007.
Winkler, C. K., [2008]: Encroachments on state Sovereignty: The Argumentation Strategies of the Bush Administration. Argumentation Springer Science.