A Lesson For Justin Higgins

Hoo boy. As the first entry in his “ROTR Summer”, our little “unabashed conservative” Justin Higgins has plopped out a post entitled “A Lesson For The Save Darfur Movement”. Let’s take a look at this masterpiece of fuzzy thinking and fact-free sloganeering…

During their fighting, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, many at the hands of the Janjaweed, and millions have been displaced. That’s the short version, and the version many are being sold on.

“Sold on” implies that there’s something “wrong” with this version of the Darfur story. What, exactly, is wrong, Justin? It looks very much like you used the phrase “sold on” to insinuate that this capsule description is somehow incorrect without actually having to say what is incorrect.

The first thing you need to know is who is selling the watered down and factually inaccurate version of what’s happening in Darfur. Let me introduce you to the group leading the charge, Amnesty International.

Justin claims that Amnesty International is “selling [a] watered down and factually inaccurate version of what’s happening in Darfur”. But he never bothers to explain what is “watered down and factually inaccurate” about their account. Are we supposed to just take your unsupported word for this, Justin? Why, might I ask, should anyone do such a thing?

A key thing to remember here is that groups like Amnesty International never operate without a political agenda.

Another accusation — and oh, lookie, not a shred of evidence for it. And even were it true: So what? Does Justin Higgins ever operate without a political agenda? Ever?

Darfur is all about being a pet cause for people that want to look like they care for the oppressed without caring about those oppressed by terrorist violence in places like Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

So, what are you trying to argue here, Justin? That those who try to draw our attention to a terrible situation in place X must, of necessity, not care one whit about a terrible situation in place Y? Do we get to use that argument to denigrate you the next time you mention some terrorist act sompleace in the world? “Justin Higgins just posted about the terrorist attack in East Buttcrack, Mongolia. He clearly wants to look like he cares for the oppressed people there, without caring about those oppressed by the government-sponsored terrorists in the Sudan.”

Works great both ways, doesn’t it, Justin? Ain’t fact-free smears a wonderful tool for the unabashed conservative? Maybe you can only express concern about nasty stuff happening in one place at a time… but that doesn’t mean that others share your limitations.

What Justin is doing is dismissing the “Save Darfur” campaign based solely upon his ad hominem attacks on the people involved. Not quite the act of an intellectually honest person — but we’ve come to expect this from our little Justin.

I sampled some discussion on some Save Darfur sites, and one comment from the Save Darfur myspace group popped out at me… A majority of the posters are obviously anti-war, and Amnesty International’s sham agenda of Saving Darfur for the sake of surrending in Iraq is apparently taking hold.

Um, what? You went to Myspace, and based upon reading a few comments there, you want us to believe that you have uncovered the awful truth about Amnesty International’s “agenda”?

Tell me something, Justin: Did you bother to actually research what actions Amnesty International itself is urging regarding the crisis in Darfur?

• “Amnesty International is calling on the UN Security Council to urgently deploy a strong UN mission in Darfur, authorized to use force to protect civilians.”
• “Urge Your Elected Officials to to fund Peacekeepers in Darfur… Getting UN boots on the ground is the most important thing we can do to ensure security for the people of Darfur.”
• “Send two crucial messages to Secretary of State Rice and your Members of Congress today: strengthen the U.S. government’s relationship with the ICC, and keep the pressure on Sudan’s government to cooperate with the ICC investigation.”

You might, in fact, be right about the commenters wanting us out of Iraq, Justin. But you haven’t explained how you got from what a commenter said on Myspace to proving that Amnesty International wants to see the US “surrending (sic) in Iraq”.

Sudan is a long ways away from being a terrorist training ground, because of the conflict, whereas Iraq is a heartbeat away from being a sanctuary state for terrorists, should we fail. Understand the defeatist Amnesty sub-plot yet?

Um, no. You haven’t presented any facts that shows any such “sub-plot” exists. What facts support your claim that Amnesty International’s involvement in the Save Darfur campaign is in reality a “plot” to ensure “surrending [sic] in Iraq”?

If we were involved in fighting Islamofascism in Sudan, which is basically what both sides are espousing, I have no doubt that groups like Amnesty would be crying about our involvement.

Lookie! Justin made up an imaginary situation, invented Amnesty International’s imaginary response to an imaginary situation, and is imagining that he has proved something about Amnesty International! What a wonderful imagination our unabashed conservative has!

The only thing we could be doing in Darfur that would help us, would be carpet bombing both sides of the conflict. For those of you that think that’s an effective solution, you obviously don’t know the definition of collateral damage. There would be even more civilian deaths if we got involved.

Why is carpet bombing ”[t]he only thing we could be doing in Darfur that would help us”? Who says so? You? Why is what would “help us” the only criterion you are willing to use to determine a feasible course of action in Darfur? And for that matter, how will carpet-bombing Darfur help the United States?

The key question in deciding which conflicts the United States should get involved in is “What Do We Have to Lose?”

Of course it is, Justin. The question “What is the morally correct course of action?” should never enter into a debate about US foreign policy. Our actions should never be driven by a concern for others, especially if they are in a land far away.

Iraq means more than Darfur.

Tell me something, Justin: Have you at any time in your life applied the “What Do We Have to Lose?” test to the question of US involvement in Iraq?

What you’ve provided us with, Justin, is an excellent example of truly sloppy thinking and miserably inadequate argumentation. Amnesty International is “selling [a] watered down and factually inaccurate version of what’s happening in Darfur”—BECAUSE! JUSTIN! SAYS! SO! No supporting evidence—you just make a bald assertion and move on. Amnesty International “never operate[s] without a political agenda”—BECAUSE! JUSTIN! SAYS! SO! No supporting evidence—you just make a bald assertion and move on. Carpet bombing is the “only thing” we could do in Darfur—BECAUSE! JUSTIN! SAYS! SO! No supporting evidence—you just make a bald assertion and move on.

Fact-free claims like these are utterly worthless, Justin, but that seems to be all you’ve got. When you get to college, you’ll find that there are professors who will cheerfully chew you up and spit you out if you turn in a paper as devoid of factual support as this post. The question is: Will you learn to do a better job of finding evidence that supports your arguments, or will you reject such criticism as a liberal “sub-plot” to deny your brilliance as an “unabashed conservative”?

Frankly, Justin, if this is the best thinking an “unabashed conservative” can do, then that phrase has just become synonymous with “joke”.

UPDATE 06/19/07 11:40 AM EDT: I posted a question for Justin in his comments section: what, exactly, was he claiming that Amnesty International advocates that the US do in Darfur? He answered:

Send troops as part of a UN or NATO peacekeeping force, effectively putting troops needlessly in harm’s way.

This is where the fun starts. I have posted two more comments, each time inviting Justin to provide the evidence that this is, in fact, what Amnesty International is calling on the US to do. Justin has failed in each case to provide any factual support for his claim. The best he can do is to shriek and clutch his pearls and bellow about how it’s “his domain” and I’d just better do whatever the hell he tells me to do. He’s so cute when he’s indignant.

But he doesn’t have the facts to back up his accusations. Once again, Justin has let his desire to be seen as the Brave Keyboard Warrior Fighting Off The Commie Hordes Under The Bed lead him to making wild, unsubstantiated claims. The poor, deluded child doesn’t even understand why he should have those facts in hand before he shoots off his mouth.

UPDATE 06/22/07 3:10 PM EDT: Well, Justin has managed to totally destroy his own argument. It gets rather messy in the comments thread on this post, so I’ll summarize Justin’s argument here. If he wants to take issue with this summary, he is of course free to do so.

[1] Amnesty International advocates sending UN peacekeepers to Darfur. No one disputes this.

[2] Justin Higgins says that what AI really means is that they want US troops in Darfur.

Despite having had several days to do so, Justin Higgins has yet to provide any citation of a statement from Amnesty International that supports this claim.

[3] Justin Higgins was challenged to provide factual support for claim [2]. Instead of a statement from Amnesty International, Justin responded with a new claim: that US troops “make up almost all of UN and NATO peacekeeping forces”. Justin’s argument here is apparently that since “UN troops” (allegedly) equal “US troops”, AI actually and specifically advocates sending US troops to Darfur. At this point in the discussion, the only support Justin has offered for his original claim (see [2] above) is this new claim.

[4] Upon being challenged to provide factual support for claim [3], Justin Higgins declares it “completely irrelevent to whether or not Amnesty wants U.S. troops in the crossfire”. So claim [3] is out of the picture, by fiat of its creator.

What does that leave as support for claim [2]?

Absolutely nothing.