Petraeus to halt Iraq troop withdrawals in July
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/pl_nm/iraq_usa_petraeus_dc;_ylt=ApWL7QcaGhgX6ZQwhyyx1Qt34T0D
In this article, General Petraeus tells Congress that he will stop Iraq troop withdrawal in July. He explains that the security gains are too fragile to pull troops out now and would lead to destabilization. He explains that the progress they made has been very small and fragile and could be reversible if he were to withdrawal anymore troops. The three presidential hopefuls (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain) all commented the general. McCain supports the war and General Petraeus’ decision and believes the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq, while Clinton and Obama are strongly opposed to the war and believe the troops should be withdrawn because they feel the U.S. is not succeeding in Iraq. Some Republicans also commented on their frustration with the war and the fact that there are no estimates on when the U.S. will be out of Iraq.
The author of this article establishes credibility for her piece by inserting many quotes from various politicians and army generals. This allows the audience to feel confident that she is reporting factual news and data. The author seems to be writing towards a more liberal/democrat/war opposing audience because of the way the article is written. Most quotes are from the democratic presidential candidates about how they believe troops need to be withdrawn from Iraq because it is a losing war. Also, the author uses phrases such as “war-weary Americans”, “fragile security gains”, and “even Republicans sounded frustrated” to emphasize what she feels the audience feels-that the war is a losing one and needs to end. The author also uses hard numbers to outline how many troops are in Iraq and how many soldiers have died because of the war. This gives the audience a negative connotation to the war because they see the devastating effects it has had.
3 comments:
I believe this is a good article for this assignment. Our country is torn right now not only because of the war but because of the presidential campaign as well. This article addresses both aspects to it which i think is very smart of this author. I agree with you that statistics and repetitive words emphasize her opinion.
I like that the article combined with your analysis shows both the political and popular sides of war. It is interesting to see the reactions of the presidential candidates because it usually reflects they think the public wants to hear. I think your analysis shows how divided the political atmosphere is in this country.
I think that its interesting how you were able to pick out the political bias about the author in your rhetorical analysis. Though journalism is typically supposed to be objective, I've noticed that authors writing about the war usually have a bias. Though the article addresses both sides of the issue, it's interesting how she focuses on the democrats and the uncertainty of the war. I feel like that is a pretty common viewpoint these days.
Post a Comment