Trudy Rubin on ISIS (5:1)

Worldview: Important to correctly define threat of ISIS

Philadelphia Inquirer, Trudy Rubin, 22 February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Trudy Rubin, an Opinion Columnist of Philadelphia Inquirer, regards the conflict of ISIS as less physical and more social. Our current understanding of ISIS may pertain solely to the definitions given to us by media and outstanding critics, many of which "dumped" on President Obama for his "refusal to use terms like radical Islam or jihadi terrorists." Rubin, having established this miscommunication, outlines the importance of defining the nation's enemies. She notes the quite obvious roots of ISIS and recognizes its religious affiliation but contrasts it immediately with the harsh reality of politics behind its name: dictatorships that give reason for extremism, nonviolent organizations overthrown, and the finance of extremist schools exemplify flaws within the political sphere rather than those in the religious sphere. From here, Rubin suggests a variety of solutions. To combat the teaching of religious extremism, Washington can encourage its authorities in Saudi Arabia to cut funding for the promotion of those ideologies. Within the virtual realm, the U.S counterterrorism communications program supports a certain appeal to pathos that draws from propaganda. Graphic videos, U.S soldier reflections, and simple tweets will hopefully suppress decisions to join ISIS. To bring the article to a close, Rubin draws from her introduction and defines the conflict with ISIS as something greater than religion.

Rubin's central contention is driven by one of Obama's recent speeches in which many White House critics scrutinized his choice of terminology. She determines whether or not this attack is justifiable and ultimately sides with Obama. Using terms such as radical Islam oversimplifies the conflict in the middle-east and often leads to domestic discrimination. Despite rooting themselves in religion, she argues, ISIS and other middle-eastern conflicts are politically based.

To support and argue this point, Rubin uses a multitude of rhetorical strategies and techniques. She begins the article with an all-encompassing rhetorical question: "How much do words matter in fighting ISIS?" Setting the mood and tone of the article, this question creates a goal  and creates an almost scientific-style approach to the situation. The following two paragraphs elaborate upon this idea and put the question under context, thus, making it more concrete and understandable. This set-up is particularly effective due to its convenient structuring and, if I were to relate it to our class, be some sort of AP Language prompt.

To synthesize and solidify her argument, she frequently makes interesting and original support. Rubin would often make a conjecture or draw strange conclusions, something that would, in any other context, work against her rhetoric. However, she follows it up immediately with support from reliable sources and other forms of reason. She would then take that form of logic and apply it to another supporting point. It strikes me as particularly remarkable that Rubin can provide a logical fallacy, convert it into a rhetoric maneuver, and then transition to repeat the process.

Rubin's superficial language might seem to be repulsive to English scholars. Her syntax often does not follow the traditional rules of sentence structure and draw from a vernacular type of writing. Starting sentences with "And" and having sentence fragments would be quite disruptive to an argument in many other contexts, but Rubin uses it in a manner that maintains formality and creates a certain conversational flow to her points. For example, she separates "Good question" into its own paragraph to lend the previous question extra attention and perhaps even appeal to her credibility as a critic.