Posted 10:57 AM by Floyd

The VodkaPundit, neé Stephen Green, posted a snarky takedown of Congressman Ron Paul's "35 Questions on Iraq". This provoked furious responses from Charles Oliver and RiShawn Biddle.

I have my own doubts as to the wisdom of an Iraq campaign, but I wasn't impressed with what Paul had to say. Here are some of his objections:

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

and in an op-ed quoted by Biddle:

"First, there are practical military reasons not to initiate a war in Iraq. Our military has been severely weakened over the last decade. Conservative estimates call for 200,000 troops to mount a successful invasion of Iraq. Placing 200,000 soldiers in Iraq- with hundreds of thousands already deployed around the globe- will further dilute our ability to defend our own shores.

Willis and Biddle claim that Green is wrong to dismiss Paul as possessing a "knee-jerk anti-Washington stance, devoid of any consistency or logic", because these paragraphs contain nothing about government. The problem is that the paragraphs are not coherent arguments; they are content-free objections.

Where did Paul's $1E+11 price tag come from? I didn't see a list of war and occupation costs, and 100 billion being a round number is kind of suspicious, no? Why would it take 30 years to occupy Iraq? Why not 20 years or 50 or 100?

Where did the estimate of 200,000 soldiers come from? (The estimates I have seen range from 50,000 to 150,000.) Why is it necessary to worry about the defense of our own shores? Will Mexico or Canada mount an invasion? Are there other enemies who have the ability to mount amphibious assaults? Does Paul really think it would be impossible to move any soldiers from overseas to deal with an invasion of the US?

Green's contention that Paul objects to the war because of anti-government beliefs is an inference. But it's a reasonable inference based on Paul's refusal to make coherent arguments and his professed beliefs. So when Green responds to question 18 with

Yes, yes, and yes. Scare tactics might work against gullible Texans in your district, but don’t try that crap in Manhattan.

Bully for him. As counter-argument Green's statement would be fatuous -- but he is responding to the lack of argument, and is making a statement that he's not interested in being snowballed.