The Iraq War

Moleinthewind, you posted a blog on the web site, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362871&mode=comment&intent=readBottom, about the war on terror in the Middle East. You stated that, "The US must stay and, among other things, deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan as a "single theater", while trying to ensure that Pakistan must not become a failed state because failure could lead to its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of very dangerous extremists". I believe your statement may be a fallacy, in the sense that it is a false cause. I believe that you are assuming that the Pakistan collection of nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, if Pakistan were to become an anarchy. This means that you are first declaring Pakistan is going to become a failure if we, the US, do not send soldiers into their country and take it over. Like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a generalization based off of little or no proof. You then declare that if Pakistan does become a failure that their nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of the enemy. This is also a generalization based off of no provided information. I would assume that maybe Pakistan has a plan all ready set for if they do become over run by the wrong kind of people. This plan would involve either destroying the weapons or somehow putting full security on them by using their military.

The assumption, that if we do not take control of Pakistan their weapons will then be possessed by terrorist, can be corrected by showing evidence of why this may be true. You could refer to events in history where a country possessed weapons of mass destruction and those weapons were taken by terrorists. Also, you could incorporate how many or what types of weapons Pakistan even has.