Jacob Staples
Miller
English 1010-37
28 September 2015
Divided Within Ourselves
Within every great nation lies that of a great leader, and behind every great leader lies that of a sophisticated council of intelligent individuals guiding their decisions through logic and reason; But what happens when the council is divided and the leader has no clear goal in mind? In a country based on democracy, we are challenged with the task of thinking for ourselves and nominating the most qualified individuals to that of leadership roles in which they make crucial decisions on our behalf for our benefit. But how does a country that’s divided within itself make the right choice? As competent Americans, we must use what resources we have at our disposal to point out the motives of those who long for our support in order to lead our great nation into prosperity. The Nation magazine and National Review magazine present us with such a debate to consider. Should we, or should we not pull our military forces out of the Middle East? “Stay” poses a very liberating debate on why our troops should stay in Iraq. With talk about military success, the National Review uses large amounts of logos when referring to the onslaught of Iraqi resistance and how we are making significant progress and pulling troops out of the country would destroy any hope of success. They fail to personalize the reader with any real emotional ties beyond simply comparing our military force to theirs and stating that if we leave they won’t be able to fend for themselves and they fail to drive their ultimate point home to the American audience, especially since they do quite well with defending themselves against us. “Why Must We Leave Iraq” is the more persuasive article. With the plethora of pathos combined with logos aimed at the average citizen, The Nation speaks to a larger audience and drives home the point by emotionally appealing the article to everyone that claims to be an American. The Nation also mentions how leaving Iraq could logically open up possibilities to peace treaties under the United Nations.
The Nation utilizes pathos by making the reader see our troops as our precious loved ones and negates to mention any positives about our presence in the East. Katrina vanden Heuvel uses very bias language with her article keeping a strict protocol of one sided facts and does not accurately describe and contrast both sides of the argument and utilizes Ad Misericordiam to drive her point home to the reader. The Nation utilized logos through the use of statistics based on past conflicts with similar foreign nations and they’re outcomes based on troop movements and their location at the time, furthermore suggesting that pulling out our battalions of the immediate danger zone would be a benefit in our favor. National Review utilized pathos by glorifying success stories and making the reader feel like deploying troops overseas keeps the immediate threats of the world harmless and at bay with the United States military in control at the helm. National Review relied heavily on Transfer when discussing their argument with the reader. During their argument, the team of editor’s that wrote National Review always looked down on the Iraqi nation referring to them as inferior in every possible way with indirect language and believed that the United States Military is better in every way and cannot be reckoned with. National Review relies on the prestigious title the United States Military and instead of emphasizing on why we should keep troops there, they go on to say that we possess arguably the best military and that’s why we should stay there, because America and that’s what we do. This argument also incorporates a plethora of Bias Language and doesn’t capture the picture as a whole. National Review utilized logos by showing the reader that if our troops fail to keep a presence within the homelands of the enemy that we will lose control of the balance of power and will no longer know what the enemy is up to and blinds ourselves to the coming future. The Nation is the more persuasive essay because of its over-the-top use of pathos and complex word choice to sway the reader from basic logic and reason, to that of personal beliefs, views, and feelings. With the ever-present repetitions of ethnic-cleansing, morals, and US military, The Nation presents a melodramatic script of misconceptions within our ideals to persuade our outlook of logic and reason to that of emotion and personal belief. “Not only is withdrawing from Iraq in our national interest; it is also the moral, responsible thing to do” (Heuvel 5). With withdrawal being one of the most repeated words, The Nation strongly advises that leaving the country, regardless of how fast it happens, is the best scenario and is the right thing to do. On the other hand, National Review’s repetitive outlook on terrorists, Iraq, and improvement leads us as a reader to believe that keeping our presence on foreign land levee’s the political clout of power in our favor as a Nation. “The Iraqi forces are improving, but aren’t capable of replacing us on the battle-ground” (Editors of National Review 18). With progress as one of National Review’s most common terms used, the emphasis of their argument is that with progress comes change, and with this change positive directives are to be derived from these so-called victories. Hot, sandy, distant, these are elements that are present in the cover art of National Review’s article “Stay”. In a place so different and culture shocked from the suburbia living of modern day America we often forget about the struggles and the hardships that we throw our young youth into in fighting for our freedoms that we more often than not take advantage of. In a barren wasteland thousands of miles from home our soldiers must rely on their dexterity, intelligence, and resourcefulness while depending on each other to survive the unfamiliar territory in hopes of returning to American soil. To what end are we turning from keeping the peace among nations, to picking an unnecessary fight with foreign countries in order to establish dominance? United, America, and diversity are elements that present themselves to us when we first take a look at The Nation’s “Why We Must Leave Iraq”. The cover art of “Why We Must Leave Iraq” very accurately describes the other side of the debate in whether we should bring or troops home, or leave them deployed overseas in hopes to keep the peace at a global scale. Our nation was built on the idea of united we stand, divided we fall, and the cover art shows that we should be doing exactly that, bringing our troops home and uniting our forces in order to protect what is most important to us, home.
(conclusion) When a nation is free of dictatorship and thrives in the gift of democracy, we are given the unique opportunity to think for ourselves and act on our own. With this freedom comes great peril in the realm of error and lack of knowledge. When given this situation we are forced to think on our own, but what happens when an uneducated nation is left with the decision of a person’s whereabouts that could ultimately lead to a prosperous life or sudden death? The most important concept to gather from these two articles is not that of who’s right or wrong, but rather how easily a person can be influenced by media propaganda to sway one way or another simply based on word choice and crafty advertisement. There is power in numbers, but when a nation’s numbers are scattered across the globe, ultimately that nation becomes vulnerable.