Analysis Of The Poem ' Proclamation Of Baghdad ' Essay

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

Kabul is a beautiful poem, written by Saib-e-Tabrizi, that is an ode addressing the city of Kabul. Throughout the poem Tabrizi describes the beauty of Kabul. The theme is Kabul is beautiful. The literary devices in this poem are similes, personification,and allusion. These three literary devices portray theme and describe how beautiful Kabul really is.

Even though both John Freeman “Beirut” and Philip Appleman “Nobody Dies in Spring” poems use setting as camera to pull the reader closer to the main action and setting as action to describe how the setting of Beirut and New York has changed in springtime, they still differ significantly on their use of setting as mood. While Freeman has chosen setting expresses a sad and dark emotional reaction, Appleman set his setting in a way that creates a mood of happiness and full of life.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

suffered the same issues during the 2003 Iraq War and made the same mistakes the British made in the American Revolutionary war. The U.S. failed to allocate the proper number of troop strength. The lack of control of the civilian population and the mistakes the U.S. made in Abu Ghraib became the rally cry for the insurgents. (Montanus, 2005) The United States initially losing the hearts and minds of the populous and as a result there were more Iraqis supporting the efforts against the United States. The difference between the U.S. now and the British 200 years ago, the U.S. adapted and formed a strategy to help the local populace. The U.S. opened dialogues with the Tribes to resolve conflicts and issues in order to win their support for the war. The U.S. assisted the Iraqi’s create a democratic government, provided logistic support and training of the country’s security forces, and resulted in stabilizing the country. (Montanus, 2005) The U.S. established a Counter-Insurgency

As acknowledge in the paragraph above the authors of this third edition book are Allan R. Millett, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis and they completely revised and expanded the book by adding more events and details of the American military experience in the Balkans and Somalia,by analyzing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2012, and by providing two new chapters on the Vietnam War.All of the authors of this history book are well educated and obviously know a lot about the history of the United States. Millet is a “University Research Professor,Ambrose Professor of History, and Director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University

The U.S. military made the same mistakes initially in the 2003 Iraq War. The U.S. failed to allocate the proper number of troop strength, failed to adapt to the terrain, and failed to foresee the used of improvised explosive device (IED). The U.S. also lacked control of the civilian population, and the mistakes in Abu Ghraib became the rally cry for the insurgents, which the Iraqis rose to support the insurgency. (Montanus, 2005) However, the lessons learned from the British 200 years ago, the U.S. adapted and formed a concept to win the hearts of mine of the people into their counterinsurgency operation. The U.S. allocated more troops, adapted to the terrain, and employed new method to defeat IEDs. Furthermore, they opened dialogues with the Tribes, resolved conflicts, and addressed issues in order to win their support for the war. The U.S. assisted the Iraqi’s create a democratic government, provided logistic support, training

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

In his article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?” Dominic Tierney discusses some of the topics in his recent book, “The Right Way to Lose a War: America in an Age of Unwinnable Conflicts.” The book, unlike the article, provides recommendations for how America can adapt to a new era of warfare. Having said that, Tierney’s article published in the The Atlantic, provides no such recommendations nor does it provide adequate reasoning to support his argument, rather he leaves the reader emotionally charged and unable to make an informed judgement concerning the validity of his claims. Specifically, the author commits the fallacies of appealing to emotion, followed by the presentation of glittering generalizations and a false dichotomy. Therefore, the purpose here is to analyze his argument as outlined in the article, “Why Has American Stopped Winning Wars?”

Pride of Baghdad unravels implicit arguments in relation to its historical context considering the Iraq war. This graphic comic contains a vast amount of significant and relevant arguments spread-out through the entirety of the novel. Yet, a specific page within the graphic novel provides a valid and noteworthy argument concerning the historical time period. One specific page includes many important elements to help validate its implicit message and argument. Through the use of a significant rhetorical appeal and kairos, this specific and particular page is justified as being the most important page in the entire book.

CERF, CHRISTOPHER AND SIFRY, MICAH L., THE IRAQ WAR READER: HISTORY, DOCUMENTS, OPINIONS, SIMON & SCHUSTER, NEW YORK, 2007.

Throughout history, the United States Government and Armed Forces have learned from devastating mistakes and decisive victories making the US Armed Forces superior to most, if not all, other militaries; however, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia throughout Operation Restore Hope, Operation Provide Relief, and the Joint Special Operations Task Force missed the mark on such “lessons learned”. The inadequate intelligence; the ignorance of tactics, techniques, and procedures; and absence of reinforcements cost needless loss of US troops, and crippling a sophisticated, well-equipped military at the hands of an under-equipped militia using irregular warfare tactics. Even 24 years later, the impact resonating still weighs heavily on minds of key leaders in the government along with all echelons of military commanders.

Sattareh Farman-Farmaian paints a vivid picture of her journey from childhood to her adult life and her encounters of the Islamic Revolution as they unfold in her home country of Iran. Even when she is studying or working in the United States, Farman-Farmaian is in constant contact with her relatives back home as well as constantly reading the news of the area as it unfolds, allowing her to give the best reactions to these events as they impacted her and her family directly. Her close relation to these events throughout the story Daughter of Persia allows Farman-Farmaian to give one of the best accounts of someone who lived through the Islamic Revolution.

Critical approach provides a historical background to Iraq war of 2003 which, according to historical materialists, has its roots in U.S. sponsored Fordist Industrial Capitalism linked with geopolitics of petroleum. According to Andrew Basevich (2005 a, 2008, 2010) the very nature of U.S. State policy is characterized by