Unstated Assumptions and Logical Analysis of the Decision to Send Troops to Iraq Post-9/11
Fallacies
Fallacies are mistakes and errors in reasoning that undermine logical arguments by not providing support (Moore & Parker 173). Various arguments lead to the development of fallacies, leading to the various types of fallacies. Logical fallacies are fallacies that can be corrected by reasoning, and they are both formal and informal. Some fallacies surround G.W. Bush’s decision to send troops to Iraq after the 9/11 attacks.
Premises: Sending troops to Iraq after the 9/11 attacks will; i) Safeguard national security, ii) Curb terrorism and protect people globally, and iii) Provide access to energy resources in Iraq.
Conclusion: Therefore, the safeguarding of national security, curbing of terrorism and protection of people around the globe, and access to energy resources in Iraq depend on the deployment of American military troops.
The causal relationships involving Iraq led to the start of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the war was also in Afghanistan, and it lasted for a long while until President Joe Biden withdrew the troops from Afghanistan. I agree with G.W. Bush’s conclusion on invading Iraq, but I do not agree with the prolonged war with objects to transform leadership. To justify his decision, G.W. Bush used to appeal to fear to persuade people his conclusion was justified.
According to Logically Fallacious, the Logical Form of an appeal to fear is:
If you don’t accept X as true, something terrible will happen to you.
Therefore, X must be true.
Explanation: If American troops do not invade Iraq, the US national security and people’s safety cannot be guaranteed due to terrorism. Therefore, troops must be sent to Iraq.
Works Cited
Logically fallacious. Appeal to Fear. Logicallyfallacious.com. Retrieved from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Fear.
Moore B. Noel & Richard Parker. Critical thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012, Pg 173
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Your second Discussion Board assignment is to identify any unstated assumptions/premises in the G.W. Bush decision to send troops to Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. If the conclusion is that troops should be sent to Iraq, and the reason is that the United States suffered an unprovoked terrorist attack, does the conclusion follow seamlessly from this reasoning?
Unstated Assumptions and Logical Analysis of the Decision to Send Troops to Iraq Post-9-11
Analyze the causal relationships involving Iraq, and assess the logical soundness of the Bush conclusion. Do this separately from whether or not you agree with the Bush decision. Try to learn to distinguish your emotional response from an assessment of logical reasoning. By the way, you will not be graded on your view about the Bush decision, but only on how well you assess the logical links that led to the decision. Write a couple of paragraphs. Critical Thinking 8th edition chapters 5,6,7 Logical Fallacies
Complete the order form and upload all of your files, including any instructions, rubrics, or other materials provided by your instructor. 
Complete the order payment after filling in the order form. We’ll receive your order and assign it to a writer.
The assigned writer will complete your paper and forward it to our Editing Team for review and approval.
Once approved by the editor, the completed paper will be uploaded to your account for you to download, review and approve.