General Petraeus Speech Summary

President George W. Bush starts his speech by acknowledging his intended audience: the Speaker of the Congress, the members of the Congress and the American people. He explains that the main aim of the speech is to address the 9/11 events and so he brings the attention to the widow of Todd Beamer, the American passenger aboard the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 who tried to reclaim the aircraft from the hijackers leading them to crash it into a field in Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He then praises the American solidarity and strength in facing the tragic events and shows gratitude to the nations that have expressed their sympathy with the American people giving examples

First looking at President Bush’s speech, the overall situation being shared throughout this piece of work is that the incident of 9/11 was a devastating tragedy and we should always remember it as a reason for why we should continue to stay strong and surpass the limit. Although Bush never did say all this, but he reflected the idea in we should never feel at complete sorrow whenever we remember this incident, but instead, feel the need to improve and advance to prevent this act of terrorism. It is never a wise choice to sorrow over a problem and leave it untouched. Ever since the incident of 9/11, the United States of America has excelled and advanced ever since in order to prevent future terror-influenced acts.

General Franks and joint planners identified various strengths in the Iraq pre-invasion planning efforts of the Joint Staff. For instance, throughout development of the Iraqi operational approach, planners recognized Saddam Hussain and the City of Bagdad as strategic Centers of Gravity (COG) as a major sources of Iraqi power and strength to the Hussain regime.5 (JP5-0, p. III-22) By comparison, Karl Von Clausewitz referred to the COG as the “the hub of all power and movement, which everything depends or the point at which all our energies should be directed.”6 (JP5-0, p. III-22) In addition, General Frank’s and planners’ operational approach acknowledged the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard as key operational COGs targeted in pre-invasion

The purpose of this speech was, overall, to address the tragic acts of terrorism. President Bush accomplishes this in an informative and effective manner through his elegiac tone throughout the speech. This mournful way of writing gives a respectful and empathetic feeling to the address. This is incredibly important, as many people were feeling grief, loss, fear, and heartache at the time. Another purpose for the speech is to call the American people to action. President Bush, through his use of imperative statements, successfully rallies his audience to action. After describing some upcoming changes to the government, he said “These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows” (“George Bush Speech”). This imperative statement gets the audience feeling determined to do their part to destroy terrorism. Soon after, he said, “I have a message for our military: Be ready. I’ve called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud” (“George Bush Speech”). This specifically calls the military to action, which is a critical aspect of the speech. President Bush also uses this speech as an opportunity to thank people who made a difference in the tragic event, saying “I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time”, “I thank the world for its outpouring of support”, and, “…I thank you for your

The invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.

During 2003, General Petraeus and his soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division had no clue of the astounding role they were about to embark on. General Petraeus found the city of Mosul in complete destruction, and knew it would take a cohesive effort through mutual trust and teamwork to restore the city. The city of Mosul did not only need a complete make over, but also a regime that shared a mutual understanding as Petraeus. Lastly, with the city rebuilding changes would bring hostility and risk to the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division. General David Petraeus was successful in Mosul, because he applied the mission command control principles of building cohesive teams, creating shared understanding, and accepting prudent risk.

In President Obama’s speech to the American people he conveys information about the death of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda. With a professional yet charismatic tone, President Obama recounts the trials and tribulations the American people endured after the events of September 11th, 2001. And expresses that justice has been done to put an end to an individual that caused pain and suffering throughout the world.

Firstly, the Address to Congress after 9/11 speech uses multiple appeals of pathos to encourage citizens and Congress the necessity to fight back against al Qaeda. In the beginning of the speech, President George W. Bush explains the horrors of what occurred on 9/11 but also “the courage of passengers who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground,” to demonstrate that average American citizens are willing risk their lives to fight terrorists with evil intentions, to save unknowing people on the ground. This type of statement ignites a fire in American hearts because they want to be as brave as their brothers and sisters and, “bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies,” to bring vengeance to the dead. They are inspired

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 1993, John Keegan, the world’s most prominent military historian, called the war “a triumph of incisive planning and almost faultless execution.” Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first war, later to become Secretary of State, concluded in his 1995 biography that even though Saddam Hussein remained in power, “the remaining Iraqi army is

With numerous opinions regarding whether the United States should continue airstrikes, re-send troops, or go another route, it is difficult to resolve the situation. Former Michigan representative Kerry Bentivolio’s thoughts that the removal of the United States’ troops from Iraq allowed the militant group easier access to overthrow the government is shared by many conservatives. Bentivolio (2009, para. 10) said in his address to congress

Logos is defined as an appeal to logic. I feel like he uses this the most out of all of the other ones because this speech is meant to appeal to logic because it is reasons on why we need to end the war. The first time he uses logos is when he starts talking about why we are in need of peace. In the speech he says “We entered this war because violations of our right had occured…” (1). I feel like this is a logical explanation as to why people go to war and why this war had begun. Therefore, it appeals to your logic.

The purpose of George Bush’s speech is to justify his future military actions and to unite the Americans by appealing to their emotions. Bush used a variety of emotive language and stylistic devices to express his concern over the incident for the audience.

In a speech given by President Bush, he called the surge “A new way forward”, which indirectly confirmed to many that the White House was aware of the military shortcomings in Iraq. Although the Bush administration most likely had the best of intentions, there are a few key reasons the Iraqi surge did not have sustained positive results. The surge strategy was to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000; these troops would be used in urban civilian areas where military forces have had a difficult time clearing out neighborhoods. The surge was initially a success, however, after several months it became clear the success was short-lived, and the overall strategy was short sighted. Members of Al Qaeda simply left the region while it was heavily occupied, only to return when the U.S. threat had vacated the area. There was a survey conducted by Iraq, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens felt that daily living conditions had not changed they were in favor of American troops leaving their country. Although the primary goal of improving the lives of citizens was not fully realized, there is a bigger flaw with the surge, it had aimed to reduce American and Iraqi casualties, as well as lower the number of Al Quad attacks. As already stated, these surges did have some fleeting success, which were able to produce statistics that briefly pacified many critics of the war,

As seen through today’s prism of operational art and design, the U.S. military’s campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not successful. This failure resulted from flaws in the planning process itself, and the conclusions that flowed from that process. The lack of adequate advance planning for Phase IV stability or transition operations proved especially problematic. This contributed directly to rising levels of violence in Iraq, and indirectly to increased public scrutiny of the war at home. Throughout 2006, the U.S. public, pundits and military planners debated the way forward in Iraq. The plan that emerged from this period, known as the surge, successfully overcame the deficiencies in the initial planning and execution