A conspicuous failure of U.S. foreign policy in Syria
LATimes, 24 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
Doyle McManus' article "A conspicuous failure of U.S foreign policy in Syria" addresses the rising tensions in the middle east and the American policies that have merely catalyzed a reaction for destruction. McManus draws from both the present and the past, making note of ambassador Robert S. Ford who accurately predicted where American relationships with Syria would go. Ford stepped down from his position, but left admonishing the actions of Obama and drawing concern towards the problem. Now we are up to our knees in warfare: weekly bomb runs tear up Syrian landscape and the fighting has been greater than ever. McManus then redirects his attention from the failed U.S foreign policy and mentions Obama's deceiving speech: he thought of it more as a success story rather than a failure. McManus follows up his argument with two important clarifications that look down upon the "smarter kind of American leadership:" we are mainly driven by the desire to help others in their countries under overpowered regimes and a new impulse to avoid another war. With this in mind and firmly established, McManus finalizes the piece by mentioning the current state of the war and where its headed.
McManus, to formulate and execute his argument, draws from a multitude of rhetorical strategies and techniques to convince the reader that the U.S foreign policy was, indeed, a failure on our politicians' part. He quotes other reliable sources frequently which attributes heavily towards his own appeal to ethos and logos as an author. We get support from the former U.S ambassador, the president himself, and the Secretary of State, all monumental factors in the progression of our politics. However, McManus uses them in a very interesting way. He structures his article like some sort of essay--one that finds a primary source, draws support from it, and then draws conclusions based on the support. It establishes a certain balance in opinion and fact and makes the piece transition nicely. The structure of the piece is nice and makes certain points easily accessible for the reader but nothing out of what I expect from these pundits.
Comment to Author:
ReplyDeleteI, for one, can not really take a stance on this argument--I am not entirely familiar with the conflict in Syria nor do I know which politician, Ford or Obama, hold a greater point. Regardless, I am curious to see how Obama conjures up a plan and executes it within his last year and how exactly the population will take that. If Ford is right, we'll likely see his popularity nose-dive given the already agitated situation. I hope, however, that everything turns out well and in favor of Mr. Obama and the nation itself.
I commented on Alex Dumas' blog, Garrett's blog, and Joe's blog.
DeleteIt's interesting that you noted the "essay" format of this piece. I've seen several pundits use it, and it tends to help their argument, but my pundit this month doesn't use it as much.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit- when I read articles about what is going on in the Middle East, I usually end up more confused than I when I began. However, you are right about the "balanced" format. It makes for a much easier read and higher level of understanding. He was smart to take a simple, classic approach in such a complex subject. Nice Job, Akbar!!
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't my comment post? I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteUh I guess I'll rewrite it. I said that I enjoyed his analysis of the structure of the post. I haven't looked at that in my pundits as much as I should have, and you gave me inspiration to do so. Anyways, the Middle East is a terrible situation, and Mcmanus is probably right in his conviction that the U.S. has failed in foreign policy there
ReplyDelete