War Handwavium

The fallacy of “Something must be done” is a fallacy where Alice argues to Bob that some situation is so terrible that something must be done. Once Bob agrees that “something” must be done, Alice then uses that to justify doing anything. Logically speaking, “Something must be done” is a fallacy of equivocation, of shifting meaning.

Alice: Al Queda killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, shouldn’t we do something?

Bob: Yes, of course.

Meanwhile, Alice and Bob have completely different meanings for “something”. Alice is thinking of carpet bombing Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Bob is thinking of limited military action in Afghanistan in conjunction with nation building to rebuild its infrastructure. Bob is basing this off the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the Al Queda attacks on 9/11, among other things.

As a technique of war handwavium, this “something must be done” comes up whenever Bob disagrees with the “something” that Alice is doing, but Alice doesn’t want to talk about her specific actions, so instead generalizes the argument so that they both agree on “doing something”.

The problem is Bob never disagreed on doing something. So Alice’s attempt to drag the discussion into “whether or not something should be done” is redundant from a logical point of view. Bob is already in favor of doing something. But taking the argument back to “doing something” has several advantages for Alice.

First and foremost, it allows Alice to bring up the initial event that started the debate in the first place. If the event is very traumatic and emotional, then pretending that she needs to convine Bob that something must be done allows Alice to reinvoke whatever tragedy started this argument in the first place. 9/11. Terrorist bombing. Whatever. That brings a massive emotional component into the debate, and dilutes the amount of logic that is actually being used in the discussion. It’s an attempt to indirectly appeal to emotions like fear and anger while trying to hide it in civil debate. Except since Bob already wants to do something, so bringing it up is logically redundant.

The second big advantage that “something must be done” gives to Alice is that it brings along with it the implied accusation that Bob doesn’t want to do anything at all, for example, it might imply that Bob in fact thinks the 9/11 attacks were a good thing. When Alice asks “Don’t you think 9/11 was bad enough that something must be done?” she is doing the logical equivalent of asking “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It’s called the Fallacy of Interrogation, andthe problem with it is that the question asked presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not been asked. In Bob’s case here, the unasked question is “Do you support Al Queda?” and the presupposed answer is “yes”. Bob thinks something must be done. It’s just that he think’s the something Alice is doing is the wrong something. Alice brings the debate down to “something must be done” in order to indirectly accuse Bob of not wanting to do anything, of actually siding with Al-Queda and their actions on 9/11.

The next advantage Alice gets by taking the argument back to “something must be done” is that it takes up space, it wears Bob down, chews up time, and attempts to force Bob to expend energy dealing with the question of “something must be done”. With the indirect accusation from Alice that Bob doesn’t want to do anything and that Bob is actully an Al-Queda supporter, Bob can get sucked into a long discussion just trying to defend himself as not being an Al Queda mole. Without realizing it, Bob has been tricked into spending his time arguing that he doesn’t support Al Queda. If Bob spends time arguing that he doesn’t agree with Al Queda and that he doesn’t agree with their actions on 9/11, then when he’s done, all he’s accomplished is to take Alice’s scuttling of the debate about what specifically should be done, defend himself against Alice’s implied question that he supports Al Queda, at which point Bob has managed to elevate the discussion back to that they both agree that “something” must be done. Exactly what Alice wanted him to say. At which point, Alice says she’s tired, others have gotten bored, the comment thread is up to 1000 posts, and the issue of what specifically should be done never gets discussed. At which point, Alice can claim that everyone agreed that “something” must be done, so she then goes and orders the invasion of Iraq in reponse to 9/11.

But probably the most important advantage “something must be done” gives to Alice is that it moves the debate from discussing what specifically it is that Alice proposes doing. Alice doesn’t want to discuss the issues and problems and moral dillemmas involved with bombing Iraq in response to 9/11. She wants to get the debate away from listing all the things that are wrong with her “something”. She wants to get the debate away from proving her “something” is foolhardy tribalism. She wants to get the debate away from what might cause the public to oppose her desire to bomb Iraq. And so she derails the conversation into “something must be done”. It gives her exactly what she wants. It invokes the fear and anger in the audience that they felt on 9/11. It accuses Bob, her debating opponent, of wanting to do nothing, of siding with the enemy, of being an Al Queda operative. And if all goes according to Alice’s plan, Bob will expend time, energy, and words establishing what has already been established: that he wants to do something in response to 9/11, but by the time he does that, the audience will be bored and Bob won’t be able to discuss why he opposes bombing Iraq.

“Something must be done” invokes the emotional response in the audience of the triggering event, appealing to their fear and anger.

“Something must be done” brings implied accusations that the other person is an enemy sympathizer.

“Something must be done” avoids discussing what specifically should be done.

If someone in a debate is invoking the emotional response of an enemy attack, if someone is accusing someone else of being an enemy sympathizer, if someone is trying to avoid discussing the realities on the ground (we’re about to invade Iraq in response to 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11), then take a look at that person’s wording and see if they’re not trying to invoke the “something must be done” fallacy.