In “Why has America Stopped Winning Wars?” Dominic Tierney argues that the US has been unable to win wars since 1945 because the world is so peaceful, the US is so powerful, and the remaining conflicts are “…the toughest and most unyielding internal struggles.” While Tierney’s major theme is compelling and deserves further investigation, the argument he makes in his article cannot stand on its own; he uses false premises, provides inadequate evidence to justify his argument, and uses fallacious logic throughout.
Tierney uses premises that need justification and evidence before being accepted. He asserts, “Since 1945, in terms of victory in a major war, the United States is one for five.” The first premise here is that the conflicts in Korea, …show more content…
For example, Tierney claims, “…conventional interstate wars are now very rare…about 90 percent of conflicts are civil wars.” These are compelling assertions, but they not attributed to any authority. Additionally, Tierney states “In 2006, there were 1,000 American officials in the Baghdad embassy, but just 33 spoke Arabic and only six were fluent.” If true, this statistic is certainly a damning indication of the US Department of State’s cultural and linguistic depth in 2006. However, there is no way to know because Tierney doesn’t refer the reader to a competent authority or reputable source. Finally and inexplicably, Tierney conflicts with himself while asserting his thesis. He writes “It’s a paradox of war: The United States loses because the world is peaceful.” In a previous statement, Tierney had asserted that as the rate of direct inter-state conflict between major powers declined since 1945, they were replaced by an era where intra-state conflict and civil wars dominate the world of conflict. Nowhere had he shown any evidence that the world is
Tierney uses premises that need justification and evidence before being accepted. He asserts, “Since 1945, in terms of victory in a major war, the United States is one for five.” The first premise here is that the conflicts in Korea, …show more content…
For example, Tierney claims, “…conventional interstate wars are now very rare…about 90 percent of conflicts are civil wars.” These are compelling assertions, but they not attributed to any authority. Additionally, Tierney states “In 2006, there were 1,000 American officials in the Baghdad embassy, but just 33 spoke Arabic and only six were fluent.” If true, this statistic is certainly a damning indication of the US Department of State’s cultural and linguistic depth in 2006. However, there is no way to know because Tierney doesn’t refer the reader to a competent authority or reputable source. Finally and inexplicably, Tierney conflicts with himself while asserting his thesis. He writes “It’s a paradox of war: The United States loses because the world is peaceful.” In a previous statement, Tierney had asserted that as the rate of direct inter-state conflict between major powers declined since 1945, they were replaced by an era where intra-state conflict and civil wars dominate the world of conflict. Nowhere had he shown any evidence that the world is