Final Paper - Long After We Withdraw The ineffectiveness of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Long After We Withdraw- The ineffectiveness of David Rieff The ongoing situation in Iraq is a delicate one to say the least. Decision makers in the American government must be extremely cautious when determining what actions will improve America’s standpoint, the standpoint of Iraq as well as the rest of the Muslim world. In, Long After We Withdraw , writer David Rieff’s ultimate goal is that he would like his readers to believe that immediate withdrawal from Iraq will lead to the eventual advancement of U.S. and Islamic relations. He creates an analogy with the Vietnam War to attempt to gain the reader’s assent that all wars end, and relations between enemies can improve. Unfortunately, Rieff’s article fails, as a whole, for several different reasons. Part of Rieff’s claim is that all wars end, a statement in which he neglects to clarify the vagueness. Rieff also falls short in convincing the reader that the war in Iraq, and the Vietnam War can be compared, as well as the fact that Vietnam’s quality of life is improving. David Rieff wants his readers to join in his belief that these serious conflicts can be overcome and historical enemies can simply put their hatred aside to coexist peacefully. The reader must pose the following questions, do all wars truly end? Can clashing civilizations really coexist peacefully? Can a person truly say what constitutes a war? Does war begin and end with the President making a statement on television explaining to his nation’s citizens the conflict that they are involved in? Paragraph 1 makes claim to the reader that the situation in Iraq has lost control, but relations can be rebuilt. The purpose here is to make the readers believe that it is time to look to the future. The problem with Rieff’s point is that it fails to provide convincing evidence that bitter relations between
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
enemies can be resolved. Rieff makes the statement, “it is worth remembering that all wars do end eventually,” but he does not provide evidence to show the reader that wars do, in fact, end. A person could make a case to say that some groups have been at war for hundreds of years, and will stay at war, possibly forever. Would people believe that the “war on terror” is over because there are no terrorist attacks for a given period of time? No, a normal person might say that we are doing well in the war on terror, but most people probably believe that no matter how long America can go without an attack, that war will not be over. Rieff does not implement a real definition for war, the decision is left to the reader to make up his/her mind about who is actually at war, when is the war over, etc. There is the possibility that Rieff implicitly meant for the reader to concentrate on actual, government declared in writing, type of war, but that information simply is not given. The affect of Rieff’s overall argument by his failure to prove his initial point will make it difficult for him to gain support in the remaining
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

Final Paper - Long After We Withdraw The ineffectiveness of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online