This is a very complicated exercise, with a lot of room for interpretation. So therefore, I want you to take the following as an example of one possible way to SCAEFOD this dispute. Take it as an example of how to phrase and format a SCAEFOD, and don't worry about it if my interpretation of the issue is different from yours.

Arguments

Emily. This invasion of Iraq is going to permanently damage America's security. Almost no one in the Muslim world gives any credibility to the Bush administration's pretext for this war, and people are highly unlikely to forgive what they see as an unprovoked attack on the sovereignty of a Muslim country, so we are likely to see a continuing effort to pull off more 9/11-type attacks on American soil.
Donnie. Hold on there! That ain't necessarily so. Remember that Osama bin Laden was originally incensed by the presence of American troops near the holy sites in Saudi Arabia, not by the American attack on Iraq. Osama's network is pretty much gone now, and there's no evidence that any new network has grown up to take its place. You should also remember that Osama was able to create the Al Qaeda network because of all the Islamic fighters that were drawn together by the Afghan war. Nothing since then has concentrated Islamic fighters in that way, so organizing a network like Al Qaeda will be much more difficult now. Finally, if the United States pulls out of Iraq immediately after a representative and independent Iraqi government is in full control of the country, radical Islamicists will no longer be able to portray America as a permanent desecrator of the holy places.

Standardization

Emily              1. No muslims believe that the US attack on Iraq was justified.
                      2. Muslims are unlikely to forgive an attack they see as unprovoked.
                      (3. Terrorism is the only viable option for striking back at the US.)                                                                                                 
                      C. The invasion (and occupation) of Iraq will permanently increase the rate of terrorist attacks against the US.     

Donnie           1. Osama was mad about US occupation of holy places in Saudi Arabia (not Iraq).
                      2. Al Queda is severely reduced and is unlikely to be replaced.
                      3. The US might allow a democratic regime to take over in Iraq                                                                                                
                      C. The invasion/occupation will not necessarily permanently increase the rate of terrorist attacks against the US.     

Contextualization

The basic issue here is whether or not the invasion of Iraq, by itself, will permanently damage America's security. That is to say, whether the invasion will do damage that the government will be unable to repair. It's hard to see how security damage can be permanent, since America is a rich country that can easily change its foreign policy and/or put more money into internal security. So our background knowledge here is that no damage is necessarily permanent, so it is up to Emily to prove that the security damage, if any, done by the invasion will be permanent. If she can't come up with a good argument to this effect, then we should conclude that the damage will not be permanent.

Analysis

Emily'sargument is direct because it doesn't address Donnie's logic, and it supports a claim about the world.
Donnie'sargument is a counter argument because it addresses Emily's logic by trying to break the causal chain between Iraq and US security.

Evaluation


Emily  Causal Argument. (causal chain)                                     Donnie Inconvenient fact method. 
          Purported Cause: US war on Iraq                                              Problem Cited: grievance isn't necessarily permanant
          Purported Effect: Permanent terrorism                                        Evidence for Problem:  Al Queda down & possibility of democratic Iraq.
          Causal chain: grievance-resentment-revenge                                 

Notice that Emily is talking about permanant damage, which we can take to mean damage that exists for the forseeable future.
Is Donnie saying that permanent damage can't possibly happen? What exactly is he saying?
Is there any unbroken causal chain between the invasion and damage to American security after Iraq is handed over to a democratic government?

Evaluation: (It's important to remember that these model answers represent what your answer should look like. If your evaluation of this issue is different from mine, that's okay as long as you take a reasonable position.) In my opinion, both arguments are reasonable. Emily is right that Muslims are likely to get mad about the Iraq war, and this kind of thing has inspired terrorism in the past. However, she is claiming that the increase in risk will be permanent. This would only hold if the cause of the resentment were also permanent. But US domination of Iraq isn't necessarily permanent. It is logically possible that the US will hand over power to a genuinely representative government, (although the present existence of a US-picked governing council makes that unlikely), and thus undercut the terrorists best recruiting tool. I therefore think that Donnie's argument is stronger. The threat against US security isn't permanently increased.

Fist of Death

If we only consider the facts presented in the dialogue between Emily and Donnie, we should conclude that the damage done, if any, to American security by the Iraq invasion is not necessarily permanent. This is because, as Donnie says, if the United States restores the independence of Iraq, Muslims will no longer be confronted with America as a threat to Islam. Donnie argues that withdrawal from Iraq will remove the insult of seeing Americans based close to the Saudi holy sites, (presumably because withdrawal from Iraq will also mean substantial withdrawal from Saudi Arabia) which will eliminate one reason for Muslims to support terrorism against the United States. Donnie points out that the terrorists no longer have the Afghan war to attract Islamic fighters, but ignores the fact that they now have Iraq as a recruiting tool. Nevertheless, the basic point remains that if United States leaves Iraq, Muslims will lose a major reason to support terrorism against the United States. Emily argues, correctly, the Muslims will see the American invasion and occupation of Iraq as an unprovoked violation of the sovereignty of Muslim country and will therefore take this is a reason to retaliate against the United States. But Emily ignores the fact that the invasion and occupation are not necessarily permanent. The United States can withdraw and allow Iraq to form an independent government. If that happens, the reason she gives for Muslims to want to attack the United States will disappear, and with it the damage to America's security. Thus her argument fails to prove that this damage is permanent.

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: