Zumstein 1

Louie Zumstein

Professor Louie Centanni

RWS 100

November 6, 2017

Is War in Iraq Justifiable?

Decisions are defined as conclusions or resolutions reached after consideration,

and one of the most disputed decisions that had to be made in American history was the

decision to invade Iraq. With the goal to end Saddam Husseins dictatorial reign and

destroy Iraqs remaining weapons of mass destruction, U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in

March 2003. The public argument against the U.S. invading Iraq is made by Jimmy

Carter in an opinion editorial and Ted Kennedy in a speech. Through assumptions made

about both of their audiences, they are able to effectively contribute to their appeals to

logos, ethos and pathos while establishing arguments against the war.

In a New York Times opinion editorial titled Just War -- or a Just War? (March 3,

2003), the 39th President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jimmy

Carter establishes that if the United States was to enter into a war with Iraq it would be

an unjust one. Through his use of facts, connecting to the audience and calling on his

time as president, President Carter is able to develop and support the argument that if

the U.S. were to enter in to a war in Iraq it would be an unjust one. In this piece the

former president complicates the issue of war for the readers of this editorial in order to

prove that the United Sates intervention would be unjust. The fact that this was

published in the New York Times shows that Carter is writing to an intellectual audience
 Zumstein 2

which may be very patriotic, but also very intelligent and knowledgeable in the Iraq

conflict.

Throughout this opinion editorial Carter makes sub-claims that are used to support

his overall argument. These ideas stated by Carter throughout his piece are used to

show what he thinks would call for war. The five claims that he believes are key are,

The war can be waged only as a last resort, The attackers must have legitimate

authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent, The peace it establishes

must be a clear improvement over what exists, The war's weapons must discriminate

between combatants and noncombatants, and Its violence must be proportional to the

injury we have suffered (Carter).

Carter takes advantage of who he assumes his audience is and focuses on appeals

to logos. In submitting an op-ed to the New York Times, a highly regarded newspaper,

Carter assumes that his audience is going to be a highly intelligent and educated

population. As such a prominent topic of discussion, the decision to invade Iraq is one

that Carter assumes his readers are going to be well versed in. With the assumption

that the audience is well versed, comes the assumption that they have an opinion on

the war. Carter wrote this piece to complicate the idea of the Iraq war for the reader and

add the element of justice to the conversation of a justified war.

With an effective understanding of who his audience is, Carter is able to

productively get his intended argument across to his audience through his use of

rhetorical appeals such as stating his former profession and background, and real world

examples from qualified sources. These strategies aide in his appeals to ethos. To an
 Zumstein 3

educated audience like this one, it is not necessary to remind them that carter was

president, but he does so when he writes, As a Christian and as a president (Carter).

This is included not only to build his credibility as a reliable source of International

affairs but to also stir remembrances of similar issues during Carters term in office

which cements his capability to comment on this decision. Carters background allows

him to be an expert on this matter and when he writes, Although there are visions of

peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion

will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at

home(Carter), the intelligent audience is inclined to believe what he is saying. Through

that expert opinion Carter is able to support his claim that if the war was to happen it

would be unjust because the peace that would be established would not be a clear

improvement of what already stands in Iraq. Quoting General Tommy R. Franks is used

to validate the claim that for the war to be just the weapons used must be able to know

the difference between combatants and non combatants. Using the Generals words,

collateral damage (Carter), shows that even one who would be commanding the

military knows that there is going to be damage to things like schools, mosques and

homes, this allows Carter to influence his audience even more because of the Generals

qualifications on the subject of war.

Appealing to the audiences logic is the best way for Carter to get his audience to

agree with his argument. As they are readers of a qualified paper he knows what can

help him connect to and persuade his audience the best way possible. To logically

support the claim that war needs to be the last resort, and that for this war there are still
 Zumstein 4

options that have not been explored further Carter uses examples from interactions

between government leaders from the U.S. and the United Nations. Carter states, In

the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options --

previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were

outlined again by the Security Council on Friday(Carter). This shows that even the

government realizes there are other non-violent options that could increase the chances

of avoiding war. Carter supports his claim that because attackers must have authority

sanctioned by the society they represent the Iraq war would not be justified through

analogies from the Secret Council. Carter writes, The unanimous vote of approval in

the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be

honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a

Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as

long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority(Carter).

In doing so he appeals to his audiences logic because he is showing that the U.S. and

their new objectives is something the Security Council does not support. The last sub-

claim made by Carter is that for the war to be considered just violence needs to be

equal to the injury that the U.S. has suffered. In support of that claim Carter recalls

Saddam Husseins crimes and the lack of evidence that he was tied to the terrorist

attack of 9/11, this connects to the logic of the audience because as intelligent readers

he assumes that to truly believe and agree with an accusation they would need a strong

amount of evidence, which at this time is missing.

 Zumstein 5

Carter is able to use rhetorical strategies in his piece that contribute to both

appeals to ethos and logos. Carter writes with a deep understanding of his audience,

and this allows him to use appeals to ethos and logos hand in hand. The layering of

these appeals allow Carter to constantly establish a source then provide a logical fact

that supports his argument.

In a speech given at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

(September 27, 2002), former senator who was elected to senate nine times Edward

Kennedy argues that Iraq does not pose enough of a threat to the United States that

would justify a war. By referencing past ways the United States handled situations as

well as stating facts on the current state of Iraq Kennedy is able to support his argument

against this war. In this speech, Kennedy is able to argue against this war in order to

convince his audience that war is not the path that should be traveled at this time. This

speech was an optional keynote address given at a very prestigious school of

international affairs providing an audience of very intellectual students who have

knowledge in world affairs and opinionated in this subject.

In comparison to that of Carter, the arguments of the opinion editorial and speech

are somewhat similar. Both argue that the war should not be fought, but one difference

though is that in Kennedys speech he believes that the war should not be fought at this

time, as there are alternatives that have not been exhausted yet. In this speech,

Kennedy cements his views against the invasion of Iraq through rhetorical strategies

that are aimed to connect to his audience of students at Johns Hopkins School of

Advanced International Studies. As students the audience are assumed to be of a

 Zumstein 6

somewhat young age they are still attendees of such a prestigious school which focuses

on international affairs. Through those factors they are expected to be very intelligent

and versed in the decision at hand.

In support of his argument there are claims that Kennedy makes in his speech that

contribute to his goal of convincing those listening that the threat that Iraq poses does

not justify going to war effectively based on the assumptions he makes about his

audience. Kennedy believes that President Bush believes genuinely that the way he is

pushing the nation is the right way, Kennedy compares the U.S. invading Afghanistan

with the possible invasion of Iraq and a uses a spread of emotionally charged language

to connect with and persuade his audience.

Kennedy concedes to his opposition in an appropriate manner when he says, Let me

say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes

genuinely in the course he urges upon us (Kennedy). By conceding Kennedy is

appealing to ethos, this builds his credibility as a speaker because he is showing to his

intelligent audience that he understands that there is another point of view to be looked

at when making this decision.

Speaking to such an intelligent audience whose focus in school is international

affairs, Kennedy is aware that they would be swayed by logical facts regarding past

instances in the U.S. He refers to the involvement of the United States in Afghanistan

which occurred only a short time before this speech when he states, Just a year ago,

the American people and the Congress rallied behind the President and our Armed

Forces as we went to war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban protectors who gave
 Zumstein 7

them sanctuary in Afghanistan posed a clear, present and continuing danger. The need

to destroy Al Qaeda was urgent and undeniable (Kennedy). In doing so he effectively

shows that there is a lack of focus in the Bush Administration because energy that

should be focused in Afghanistan is being pushed towards Iraq, which Kennedy does

not view as such an important foe.

Young audiences tend to be easily moved on an emotional level, Kennedy is aware

of this and appeals to pathos. To make the audience feel a certain way emotionally is a

tactic Kennedy believes to be effective. He refers to 9/11 which was such a disastrous

time in U.S. history when he says, That is the true spirit of September 11th - not

unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism -

to defend our values and the value of life itself (Kennedy) this allows Kennedy to make

the audience emotional and therefore allowing them to be swayed easily on a level

other than logical.

Through rhetorical strategies that appeal to ethos, logos and pathos Jimmy Carter

and Ted Kennedy make their arguments to their specific audiences in an effective way.

By understanding who the audience might be they are both able to make assumptions

on their audience which help their appeals and therefore allow them to establish their

arguments that the U.S. should not go to war with Iraq.

 Zumstein 8

Works Cited

Carter, JImmy. Just waror a Just War? New York Times, Opinion Editorial 9 MARCH

2003 N.P. WEB

Kennedy, Edward M. (Ted) Speech Against the Invasion ofIraqtedkennedy.org. 27

September 2002, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Washington

D.C>]. Keynote Agrees N.P. Web