In this article, "Petraeus recommends hault to troop reduction in Iraq," found in the Detroit Free Press, The fact that the U.S general commanding the war in Iraq, Petraeus, has called for an open-ended halt to pulling troops out of Iraq. This plan allows Petraeus a more flexible handle on the still-violent country, despite the fact that the Democrats are pushing for a more rapid reduction in troops. Petraeus is putting a hault to the reduction of troops in Iraq because he feels it will jeapordize the progress made in the past year. The U.S. ambassador to Baghdad,Ryan Crocker, spoke in response to Petraeus saying that this isn't the only thing that Petraeus is correct in his recommendation, but it's really unlikely that keeping troops in Iraq will fully help with security; Crocker believes that there is much more that needs to be done. The democrats explained, in response to Petraeus, that his plan seems open-ended; Crocker responded to this by explaining that there is an agreement in the works between the U.S. and Iraq in regards to U.S. troops which he says "will not specify troop levels and will not tie down the hands of the next administration."
Analyzing this article in a rhetorical fashion, it becomes pretty apparent that the author of this article is in support of the democratic view, which is to pull troops out of Iraq more rapidly than Gen. Petraeus is proposing. The author could have made the decision to focus solely on Petraeus' argument, but they decided to add the Democrats' point of view. The entire tone of the article is more focused towards undermining Petraeus' argument; an example of this is the author stating that Petraeus' plan was open-ended and that he didn't define when his goal would be reached, calling out the flaws of his plan. The author continues to address the notion that, when Petraeus' plan was argued as erroneous by a Democratic representative , Petraeus "declined to be pinned down," only saying he would recommend further cuts when "the time was right."
2 comments:
This article is about the same topic as Sean's! Haha funny. But a different article, with a very different tone. It's interesting how each article you guys did took kind of different positions on each article. You did a good job of summarizing the article and also interpreting what the author said. When you pointed out in analysis how the author directed attention to the flaws of the plan, it showed the bias in the article and had solid proof to show where you found it.
This is funny because we did the exact same topic, but the authors obviously have completely different points of view. Your summery is very well done because it is informative and it tells me different information than I read in my article (this is a good thing). I also like your rhetorical analysis because one were able to pick out things that your author did that showed their bias.
Post a Comment