Well, quite soon after this blog comes online we are offered a wonderful example of how people can twist debates.<\/p>\n

A common tactic when people come under criticism is to turn it round and attempt to refute the comments by making (an often personal – also called ad hominem<\/em>) attack on the original.<\/p>\n

This is flawed logic. It does in no way show the criticism to be flawed, and to an extent is a subconcious reaction to the criticism being correct.<\/p>\n

Today, the UK news was full of stories about Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. For some online examples the BBC<\/a> covered the topic as did the Guardian<\/a>. In a nutshell the Brigadier accused the US Military of being institutionally racist in how they handled the people in Iraq.<\/p>\n

Now, without going into the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Iraq, the insurgency or the various governments motives for war, lets take this little item all on its own.<\/p>\n

From the BBC article this is what we are told about his article –<\/p>\n

“In it Brig Aylwin-Foster says American officers displayed such cultural insensitivities that it “arguably amounted to institutional racism” and may have helped spur the insurgency.<\/em><\/p>\n

While the army is “indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in… what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War,” the officer wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n

Operations to win the peace in Iraq were “weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on”, he added.<\/em>”<\/p>\n

Well, you may, if you are from a military background, seriously disagree with the Brigadier’s assessment of the situation and the level of response meted out by the US military. If you felt he was wrong and wrote a sensible, level headed debate about the flaws in his reasoning then good on you<\/strong>. Sadly, not everyone feels able to do this.<\/p>\n

If, however, you feel this article has attacked you<\/strong> personally but you can not find fault with it, you may also feel you have to say something to save face and try to divert the flak away from you (or in this case your policies) and hopefully make every one laugh at the person who has criticised you. This is common in school playgrounds (and on USENET…) but you would think that senior military officers would be above such things.<\/p>\n

Not so.<\/p>\n

More from the BBC site:<\/p>\n

Col Kevin Benson, commander of the US Army’s elite School of Advanced Military Studies, said his first reaction was that Brig Aylwin-Foster was “an insufferable British snob<\/strong>“<\/em><\/font><\/p>\n

Well, that says it all then. Obviously his comments cant be correct because he is a British snob….. Shocking. Instead of thinking “he is wrong because XYZ” or even “ok, he is right but so what” the Colonel felt the need to try an immediately reduce the Brigadier’s status in the minds of observers by throwing insults.<\/p>\n

The big problem is that this often works. It happens in political debates all the time and often a stinging insult like this can dismantle otherwise perfectly sound legislation. This sort of comment happens all the time in normal life. You will say to someone – “your painting is terrible” and the reply would be along the lines of “you cant do any better.” This is the same tactic. They are not actually disagreeing with what you are saying – just trying to diverty the debate and take the heat of themselves.<\/p>\n

Makes you wonder really. Around 99% of the time, when some one does this, it is because they are in the wrong (the paintings are<\/strong> terrible) so does this imply Col Benson agrees the US military is institutionally racist?<\/p>\n