In the war on Afghanistan, many assumptions have been made. These assumptions are the basis for a rational argument that much of what the U.S. has been told about the war in Afghanistan is either untrue or flawed in the sense of being fallacies.
The assumption has been made that the only reason the U.S. went to war was because of Osama Bin Laden not being turned in by the Taliban. President Obama said, "Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden " we sent our troops into Afghanistan" (2009, p. 1). Originally, the United States never knew where Osama bin Laden was in the first place. We may have had the "idea" that we knew where he was, but really we never knew where he was. At best, the United States intelligence services have been doing guesswork as to where Osama bin Laden "might" be. The idea that bin Laden was actually in Afghanistan is not necessarily a fact, that is what was assumed; the U.S. never knew where bin Laden was and still doesn't.
Obama also said, "Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011" (2009, p. 1). This writer would call the end of the Iraq War anything but responsible. Obama promised he would end the war immediately as soon as he got in office and he didn't do it. Thus, his statement could most likely be portrayed as a lie.
In one vein, Obama says, "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops" (2009, p. 1). Then, shortly after Obama makes that statement, he says, "Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war" (2009, p. 1). If there was never an option calling for more deployments before 2010, why does Obama have to reinforce the point that the option was never on the table This also seems like a lie, as though he is covering his tracks. Obviously, if more deployments were needed before 2010 and he turned a blind eye to these important decisions, military and civilians would probably think it reckless and would probably be upset. The fact that Obama has to state the fact that there was never a call for more deployments seems like it is a fallacy created out of the fact that if a lie was not told, many people would be angry about his handling of the war.
Obama also noted, "Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum" (2009, p. 1). This is an outright lie, as Afghanistan is basically a lost cause. There are too many peaks and valleys there to really infiltrate properly. Also, the capital of Kabul has been very close to being toppled for a long time. Here the President is