Reality Of War

Mariama Bandeh Shoemake English 1101/ Section 6 February 13, 2018 Rhetorical Analysis On September 11, 2001, President George W Bush gave an address to America after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York City. He had several purposes in giving this speech. One of them was to inform the viewers of the incident that had taken place, being that some people were confused. Another, to give the people reassurance being that some were petrified and concerned.

The Bush administration obtained a substantial amount of advantages solely from calling the 911 attacks a “war”. American citizens believed that they were obligated to trust every decision the government made. Primarily because American citizens believed that it was unpatriotic to disagree with government actions concerning the “war” against a perpetrating country.(Denton 2) Bush and his administration created a larger margin of error for themselves considering the American citizens most likely would not question any government decisions pertaining to the “war”.

Former President George W. Bush’s speech, “Bullhorn”, was given through a megaphone on top the rumble of 220 floors of a horrific event. On the day of September 11, 2001, an Islamic group, called Al-Qaeda, hijacked four American passenger airliners to carry out suicide attacks against targets across the United States. The potential targets included: the twin towers, the Pentagon and the White House. Three of the four hijacked airliners accomplished their goal as the lives of 3,000 innocent civilians were taken. A cloud of grief and mourn covered the country as they experience the worst tragedy since 1941, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Soon after the attack on September 14th, a ray of hope appeared as President Bush took the stage. Throughout his speech, three rhetorical devices were shown are: ethos, logos, and pathos. Bush used these three devices to connect with the audiences’ emotions, appeal to the audiences’ ethics, and appeal to the logical side of the audience additionally, all while creating a sufficient speech to the comfort the country.

President Bush, shares his view on the matter throughout this speech. Bush’s purpose is to try and help Americans not panic during such a terrifying situation that has changed American history. Since Bush understands what Americans or people in general the world must be feeling, he is able to address the matter in a calm and collected way. In “Bush’s 9/11 speech,” the author, President George Bush, uses various rhetorical devices to reinforce his position on the 9/11 attack.

“None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.” That was one of George W. Bush’s many emotional yet strong sayings in his speech of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York city. His goal of unifying, making the country feel bonded together, was achieved through vivid and organized word choice. He chose these words to connect with the people of america's emotions and feelings, while also displaying authority and logical sense that terrorism is a threat to the world.

When Bush addressed the nation, he had to assure the American people of their country’s strength, which would undoubtedly triumph through this unthinkable misfortune. George W. Bush states, “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong (Eidenmuller).” This shows how Bush is trying to create an emotional connection to the audience by instilling in Americans that our country must remain unified and strong during this time of terror. Bush also states, “These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve (Eidenmuller). This statement testifies that our country cannot be broken, and our country will prevail. About one-in-five Americans cite the country’s response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the time in their lives when they felt most proud of their country (Gramlich). This indicates just how powerful our country can be if everyone works together. The terrorist attacks on the United States will forever be burned into the memories of Americans. That being the case, Bush’s attempt at creating an emotional connection to the audience was successful because he brought the country together with words of strength.

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

Following the 9/11 attack in America, Bush declares Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the enemy. Bush clearly states that the 9/11 attacks were an initiative action of war and coins the term, “War on Terror” which has developed and is also adaptable with other terms, such as “War on Drugs”. His speech also educates his people about Islamic terrorism alongside their practices and mentality. Bush seems extremely patriotic and expresses great anger and almost thinks for his citizens by saying, “our grief has turned to anger”. Nonetheless, Bush feels strongly about defending America’s freedom and won’t back down to this violence. Furthermore, Bush’s speech was extremely effective as the crowd was very dense, actively involved through cheers and claps. This however, may have induces a mob mentality as an individual action of support such as a cheer could easily ripple through the crowd and suddenly everyone

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a

This paper reviews America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and how this relationship influences American warfare through the research and study of the interpretation and analyzation of American military models, policy and goal changes, the use of military technology, “American way of war,” and the relationship with, preparation for, and application of war.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

Dulce et Decorum Est uses extremely graphic imagery to convey the reality of War as seen through the eyes of the poet. At the beginning of the poem the troops were portrayed as ‘drunk with fatigue ‘. It paints a vivid image of large numbers of soldiers dragging themselves through the mud tired beyond anything one can imagine. He talks about them limping on ‘blood-shod’ because many had lost their boots. It paints a dark and miserable picture of what the soldiers had to endure.

War is an inevitable feature of international politics. Assess with reference to liberalism or realism