This is a two-part analysis of Fred Kaplan's article on former National Security Council anti-terrorism official Richard Clarke. (Link to statement at slate.com)
An analysis generally includes a statement of relevant facts. The first section of the analysis, in the box immediately below, tries to identify and briefly explain the problems Kaplan is trying to address. The objective here is to provide an overview that gives the reader a quick summary of essential points with enough information to know what positions the essay advocates. The section in the next box discusses critical thinking issues.
This analysis does not include a discussion of methodology, which is a common way to begin an analysis or provide a bridge between reporting of the facts of the situation and analyzing their meaning or interconnection.
|
Fred Kaplan's essay on former National Coordinator of Counter-terrorism
Richard Clarke states its main idea in its title:
"Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth:
Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism." Kaplan's aim is to
explain
why he believes Richard Clarke, author of a new book, Against All
Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, is a reliable source of
information about negligence in the Bush administration. The alleged
negligence that Kaplan is concerned about is Clarke's assertion that the
Bush administration did not respond seriously to the threat of terrorism
on American soil in the period between the beginning of President Bush's
term of office and the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that after
9/11, the administration wasted valuable resources on a misguided attack
on Iraq while al Quaeda was and remains the real terrorist threat to
America. Kaplan adds Clarke's book to a list of reports that Bush was
obsessed with starting a war with Iraq.
Kaplan states that Clarke's report of Bush administration malfeasance is consistent with the reports of other individuals, most notably former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Rand Beers, Clarke's successor as National Coordinator of Counter-terrorism, who have served in the administration and are now critical of it. Kaplan also says the response from key White House spokespersons Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice to Clarke's charges have been weak and contradictory, which he takes as evidence of the Bush administration's inability answer Clarke. Kaplan calls Vice-President Cheney's effort to discredit Clarke on the Rush Limbaugh radio program "laughably absurd." Kaplan has known Clarke for over twenty years and believes that Clarke would not put himself in a position to be easily defeated. Clarke's long career in the Washington bureaucracy and his high-level service under both Republican and Democratic administrations are evidence for Kaplan that Clarke is making points he about which he is very confident. The fact that Clarke has served in high-level security posts since the Reagan administration is evidence for Kaplan that Clarke is both competent and non-partisan. Kaplan reports that while Clarke's position in the Clinton administration was near the center of power, it was downgraded in the Bush administration. Kaplan reports that Clarke interpreted this move as a sign that before September 11, the Bush administration was not as serious about terrorism as the Clinton administration. Kaplan also believes that although his title did not change, Clarke "probably resented" the demotion. Kaplan states the Clarke will no longer talk with him. The information he has comes from reading Clarke's book and consulting sources who he believes provide reliable information about Clarke. |
This second part of the analysis of Fred Kaplan's article on
former national Security Council anti-terrorism official Richard Clarke seeks to identify and explain some specific critical thinking issues that
show up in the essay. It includes topics such as definition, argument structure, explanation, and credibility. The essay is not intended as an exhaustive analysis, but as an example of how an analysis of this type works.
|
The charges that Richard Clarke makes against the Bush administration
are serious if they come from a credible source. Credibility can come
from such factors as education or personal experience. It
can be negatively affected by such factors as personal interest, physical
incompetence, and intellectual inadequacy.
Fred Kaplan had to decide whether Clarke was credible, and used inductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that he is. Even if all of its premises are true and relevant, an inductive argument cannot provide certainty that its conclusion is true, but a good inductive argument can make a strong case for the truth of its conclusion. The three premises in Kaplan's inductive argument are (1) that Clarke's story is consistent with other reliable reports, (2) that administration officials who would want to discredit him have not been able to do so, and (3) that Clarke is a long-term survivor in the cut-throat world of the Washington bureaucracy. This is a fairly strong argument because the premises are all relevant to the question of Clarke's credibility and at least two of them, (1) and (3) are simple matters of record that are not very open to dispute. The second premise, which is the least important of the three, is more a matter of opinion. Clarke's credibility is negatively impacted by Kaplan's report that Clarke may have resented having a less important role in the Bush administration than he had in the Clinton administration. It is important in this connection that even though Clarke may be angry about his treatment, Kaplan reports that there is no evidence so far that Clarke has said anything false. Kaplan's own credibility is bolstered by the facts that he is writing for a well-established publication, Slate, that he has personal knowledge of Clarke, and that he is reporting that Clarke is a credible source even though he is not on friendly terms with Clarke. Kaplan wants the reader to accept Clarke's version of history. He reports that Clarke wants to argue the thesis that Bush has done "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. The fact that al Quaeda was able to carry out its attacks on Bush's watch may support this claim. Kaplan reports that Clarke's book details how the Bush administration systematically ignored or downplayed evidence of a coming al Quaeda attack. This is open to interpretation, but what is not open to interpretation is the fact that after 9/11, the United States attacked Iraq, which apparently had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks; this attack strengthened Osama bin Laden's propaganda, says Clarke. Kaplan reports that Vice-President Cheney uses the dysphemism "was moved out" to describe Clarke's request to be transferred out of his position as National Coordinator of Counter-terrorism. A dysphemism is a substitution of one word or phrase for another to make something seem worse than it might otherwise be perceived. In this case, Cheney has an interest in making Clarke appear weaker and less self-directed in the situation.
Kaplan also reports that there are apparently contradictory reports of
Clarke's position in the White House. Contradictories are statements
that are logical opposites; they cannot be true at the same time and
cannot be false at the same time. One side says that Clarke was appointed
to a Cabinet-level position and the other says he never held Cabinet
rank. If there is no equivocation (use of a word or phrase in different
senses in the same context), then one side is not correct in its claim.
Since this is a matter of record, it should not be too difficult to
determine which claim is true and which is false.
|