http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/world/middleeast/08military.html?ref=middleeast"
This article mainly discusses how the number of attacks from Iraqis on our forces have recently subsided in the last few months. Yet, in March, these attacks are now doubling. This is because there have been a large number of new attacks on what is called the "Green Zone" where Iraq's central government, and the American Embassy, are located (Sadr City). Attacks on civilians have mostly remain unchanged, but the reason for an increase in other attacks is mostly in part due to the Prime Minister's decision to create a military campaign in attempt to retake control over the port of Basra from Shiite militias. However, despite all of these increases in attacks, the numbers are still down from years before. So while there has been some success, the Shiite militas are still a problem. This data was not confidential and was supplied to the New York Times.
Surprisingly this article seems very unbiased and the author seems to give very factual information. He discusses both how people will most likely continue to criticize Bush (which makes him sound pro-war) but also discusses how there have been some military mistakes made and somewhat leans to a negative side of the war (i.e. how deaths are still going to continue). Also, his quote "the number more than doubled in March from the previous month, according to statistics compiled by the American military in Baghdad. The sharp increase in overall attacks, to 631 in March from 239 in February, reflects new strikes against the Green Zone...Violence in Sadr City first flared more than a week ago after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki started a poorly coordinated military campaign to retake the southern port city of Basra from Shiite militias." Using words such as "sharp," "more than doubled", and "poorly coordinated campaign" show that this war certainly does have its problems. Overall, as stated before, this article does seem mostly unbiased to readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This seems like a pretty interesting article, showing a change in militia attacks during the time of war. Your rhetorical analysis is good for only being 150ish words long. I like how you express both sides, how the article is not really either for or against war, but rather just expressing the facts. One thing that you could improve on, however, is the length of the quote you put in the rhetorical analysis. When there is a word cap of 150, a 4-line-long quote isn't the best use of space. You could probably just cite individual words to show the negative implications.
Good choice of words to focus on, I like how you looked for the tone of how the subjects in the story and the writer himself felt about the war. It was good to see that you found an "unbiased' article from someone who was just honest and took a look at all sides of the Iraq situation.
Post a Comment