US Foreign Policy and Media: A Patriotized History?

This has been my obsession over the past couple of weeks...an exam for my American Government class. I doubt anyone will read the whole thing, or even any of it or that matter, but I had to put it out there because there was a lot of time, energy, thought, and turmoil put into all the learning that led up to it as well as its composition. It was sprinkled through my conversations and was even literally haunting my dreams.

The unit we were studying concerned the media, U.S. foreign policy, and my professor's theory, based upon Herman and Chomsky's assessment found in their work Manufacturing Consent. A summary of those ideas can be found in the first question. Number two concerns the questions as to whether there is a such thing as "ordinary thinking" or objective facts when it comes to media. Number three speaks to the range of debate and criticism of the U.S. government. Number four speaks to the "why"- why a patriotized picture of history and now is painted. Number five are some excepts from articles that demonstrate these assumptions.

Feedback would be welcomed with open arms. And a kiss on the cheek. And a banquet. And probably a bangin afterparty.


1. The basic premise of Herman and Chomsky’s theory is that we, the American people, are presented with a patriotized history by two types of changes: misinformation and misrecognition. Misinformation occurs when information is withheld and/or false information is presented. Misrecognition, a more difficult concept to define, occurs when the facts are shown, and although perhaps true and actual, are intentionally manipulated so that they are “misrecognized” in congruence with a U.S. patriotized history. Misrecognition has more to do with the patriotized filter through which Americans take in the media that is presented than the material itself. Herman and Chomsky address several assumptions that lead to the formation of the benevolent superiority ideology of U.S. patriotism and a skewed view of actual history. In this class we were presented with six core assumptions, condensed points taken from thoughts of Herman and Chomsky. A brief overview of these six assumptions are “U.S. Self Sacrifice”, that the U.S. is the victim and hero in its ventures abroad, “U.S. Benevolence”, that the U.S. is out to help the people of the target country, the assumption that “Target People Support U.S.” where the people of the country are redefined as only those who support the U.S. agenda, “U.S. Self Defense”, the assumption that violence by the U.S. is only for self-protection, “Democratization”, the assumption that the U.S. aims to spread democracy and support human rights, and finally “U.S. Jurisdiction,” an assumption that Chomsky calls “we own the world, or the idea that we are the world police and any opposition is a criminal act.

I have been very intrigued and unsettled by all of the ideas and information presented based on Herman and Chomsky’s assessments. When I look at cases like Iraq, it seems undeniable that many people saw the U.S. occupation there through the lens of a U.S. benevolent superiority ideology. When looking at actual documentation, it seems that that endeavor was based much more on oil than it was on the suspicion of WMDs and bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. It is easy to see that even the critics of the U.S. occupation assume that the U.S. has jurisdiction there, as most arguments point out instances where U.S. military forces killed “innocent people,” meaning those that were not resistant to the U.S. agenda. It seems to me that the term “insurgent” has been assigned incorrectly, not to mean those rising up against their own government, but those who are resisting U.S. occupation. To paraphrase the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of “insurgent”, an insurgent is one who revolts against an established government. Many articled from the U.S. media concerning Iraq use the term “insurgent” to the Iraq forces resisting the U.S. in Iraq. Therefore, I agree with the idea that an ideology of world jurisdiction has affected not only the way these stories are told, but also the way we, the readers/viewers interpret them. After being presented with examples of case after case of U.S. dealings abroad and its foreign policy- examples where the whole story was never presented or stories that were written in such a way as to mislead about the truth of U.S. activity- I could not help but agree that these theories supported in class, influenced by Herman and Chomsky, must have at least some validity.

Despite this, I’m not ready to jump on this train of thought that the U.S. is always an evil, self-interested, deceitful monster that tries to cover up its dirty deeds as it tries to take over the rest of the world. We have seen numerous examples where the U.S. has supported rebellions to overthrow democracy to install a puppet dictator or leadership that caters to U.S. interest (Iran 53-79, Suharto in Indonesia in 65-mid 60’s, Congo and Zaire from 1960-1997, the Dominican Republic 1930-1978, and the list goes on), but according to my experience with family members in the military, dialogue with peers, and a general sense of the American public, I don’t think that the six assumptions are false all the time. Yes, many assume U.S. Self-Sacrifice and that the U.S. was the victim and was wronged in instances such as Vietnam and now in the current conquest in Iraq, but I do not think that the U.S. is always the perpetrator when portrayed as the victim by the media. Yes, many would assume that the U.S. is always benevolent and acting in the interest of other nations and peoples where this is clearly not true, illogical, even, when realistically looking at the nature of humanity and its tendency to look out for “number one” first and foremost. U.S. benevolence may be a false idea to assume, but it does not mean that the U.S. never acts or has never acted in benevolence.

It was said in the “6 Assumptions” handout that we falsely believe that the U.S. is unique or special, but I think in some ways the U.S. is just that. Our history as a people is different from that of most other countries is the world in that it is a young nation founded largely by “immigrants” looking to establish a nation that allowed for a better life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than existed in the places from which they were immigrating, or at least that was the goal for many- to make a better life in a new land. Again, I submit there were many aspects of hypocrisy including colonizing through the domination and violence toward indigenous people, unjust actions committed because of arrogance and hunger for wealth, the existence of slavery, many atrocities in the name of the Christian religion such as the Salem Witch trials and the attitude toward “pagans” and more. Despite these, I would argue that many people did and still do adhere to ideals not commonly held by other nations.

Perhaps it stems from what has been passed down to me. From the time of elementary school we are trained to place our hand over our heart and pledge allegiance to the American flag every school day (something by which I am
disturbed upon reflection). We are taught that we live in the greatest country of the world and are instilled with a sense of patriotism which is probably where these assumptions that are under scrutiny here are rooted. It seems to me, though, that whenever a catastrophic event or disaster occurs abroad, the U.S. does and is therefore expected to step in and help. It seems that there have been situations where aid was needed, and the U.S. had the means to help where other nations could not and/or did not. Maybe in this way I have bought into a false assumption, maybe this is a burden the U.S. has placed upon itself, reminiscent of Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden.” Taking into account what I now know, I disagree with the assertion that the U.S. government should step into conflicts involving other nations without the support of the U.N., considering its track record with supposedly “helping.”

Either way, I cannot so quickly disregard people I know personally in the U.S. military who argue that this is the greatest nation in the world and are fighting to support it, putting themselves at risk because they believe in what is good about this nation. If it is true that power corrupts, maybe it is the “higher ups” and the leaders of administrations that begin to make poor, self-interested, corrupted decisions. The military is very much a chain of command and many actions that are carried out are done so by people following orders from another who was following his or her orders, and so on. It seems to me that many people on the ground genuinely are benevolent and genuinely do believe in democracy and would support its spread throughout the world. I can’t so quickly discount them, saying they’ve been brainwashed through false assumptions and a patriotized history, although I am also not failing to acknowledge that these also are true in some (many) cases. Perhaps this is problematic because of situations like Nazi Germany where the reality of the atrocity that was happening was lost in the bureaucracy, objectification, and dehumanization of information. Murders became simply numbers. It seems that many people on the ground truly fall in line with these assumptions, but perhaps corruption start with the people in power who do not see reality but make decisions based on cold data, aiming to further the ultimate goal.

In the end, I would say that there are parts of history that have been patriotized and that the “6 assumptions” have been wrong many times, but not always. There are some sources of media that are more accurate than others, some stories that misinform or manipulate with misrecognition, most commonly in the mainstream media, but not every story. I guess I would consider my hypothesis to be a “both/and” situation, though leaning toward the assessment given by Herman and Chomsky and Dr. Brichoux. I agree that it is so important to fight this ideology itself because as long as it remains unchallenged, this problem will never be stopped. One student argued that we cannot blame the U.S. as a whole because each administration has killed different people and has committed different evils abroad. I would argue that this further supports the opposing position that if the same problem is seen in different situations, then it is a larger ideological problem. I agree with the assertion that we need to get to the point where we the people see that if we can justifiably take a certain action, then so can other nations, and if we are making decisions for other nations, then we should truly allow for democracy and allow these people to vote in our elections.

2. I believe that it is possible for us to have a more accurate view of reality within U.S. policy than that with which we are presented, but I do not think that there is a set “ordinary” way of thinking or an objective reality that exists in and of itself. It seems to me that the more true information given and the more we hear from different angles, the broader picture of reality we can achieve, rather than the myopia of hearing one voice or accepting the final product that emerges from the various filters within the media, the government, and ourselves. Every story is subject to language, and language is subject to interpretation, which differs from individual to individual, and also from people group to people group, depending upon values, experiences, opinions, etc.

It seems to me that language is a very important part of having the most accurate view of reality possible. We see many problems with terminology such as “terrorist,” “security forces,” and “insurgents.” One necessary filter for discerning the most objective reality possible would be to closely scrutinize the meaning behind these loaded words. It is obviously important to maintain the integrity between how one party (i.e. the U.S. mainstream media) uses a term and how another party (i.e. the American public or other nations) interprets that term.

An example of a problem in this area is the word “insurgent.” Problems with this word were very common in the articles with which we were presented in class. One is found in an article that speaks of “twin dangers facing the country: insurgent violence against Americans and Iraqi security forces.” Merriam Webster Dictionary defines insurgent as “a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government.” If we agree upon this definition then, in this case, the U.S. has asserted itself as a civil authority or established government in Iraq, which is far from reality- the resistance is coming from the people of the real established government. This type of redefining is a common occurrence. Another example is the word “terrorism.” It is often argued that U.S. involvement in the Middle East was motivated by the fight against terrorism. Again, the dictionary defines terrorism as using violence or fear to coerce for political purposes. I’ve commonly heard it said that most Iraqi people support U.S. occupation, and the terrorists are the people who are resistant. A small example of how this differs from the truth can be seen in some polls taken by “WorldPublicOpinion.org.” These polls showed that 79% of the Iraqi public thought that the U.S. had a negative effect on the situation in Iraq. 62% said they had no confidence in the U.S. to protect their security, and another 22% said they had little confidence. On the other hand, the U.S. is a foreign power that has killed many Iraqi citizens, so it seems that it is more in line with the dictionary definition of terrorism. It is examples like these that show that the necessity of agreement upon definitions by all parties involved in order to form an objective reality.

Slants and bias are inevitable, though, and due to the bent in the human nature toward self-interest, every reality will be slightly skewed. Words are merely symbols or tools to communicate ideas, and every interpretation may be different, as I said earlier. Bias is seen even through which stories are told. It would be impossible to publish updates on or find out about everything that happens in the world and every minor conflict, therefore the selection of the story itself takes away objectivity. Despite this, I do think it is possible to get much closer to “ordinary thinking” or objective reality than what we see now with U.S. media.

3. It is undeniable that both political parties during the 2008 election took positions within patriotic assumptions. Despite the fact that Obama was the more favorable candidate for leftist anti-war supporters, the Obama and Biden administration stated their policy had the goal of building up special operations forces that would allow for “a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces” to confront “threats,” as well as aiming to swell the size of the military by tens of thousands. The motivations are clear when they state that they want to “ensure the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars in stabilization and counter-insurgency programs.” These kinds of statements say much about their mentality. Revisiting the dictionary definition of “insurgent,” statements like these seem to say that the U.S. wants to step into conflicts against the governments in foreign nations. First, I would say that the U.S. has no business intervening in these situations, on our own at least, unless the U.S. had the backing of the rest of the U.N. security council if the conflict falls under what the charter had deemed an appropriate situation in which to intervene. Not only that, but it directly states that they seek to “ensure...lethality” in these situations- they seek to safeguard our ability to murder those that resist their agenda. Obama’s Iraq policy clearly shows that the reason for backing out of Iraq has nothing to do with human rights on a global level, but shows that patriotic assumptions have been made because the reason for withdrawing only relates to the cost to the U.S. through money and casualties (“We know that the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect…”).

McCain’s stance is also within patriotic assumptions, and is even more overt. His policy stated his administration’s goal to “maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.” This simply reeks of a superiority mentality. He also advocated the expansion of the military, the development of missile defense (“to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary”), and modernizing the armed forces. Perhaps the most honest statement he makes is when he says that he would use force when “our nation’s values and interests absolutely demand it.” The problem with this idea is that because of the superior “we own the world” mentality, these said “values and interests” are an insatiable quest for U.S. interests under the guise of “spreading democracy” or the idea that we are the “good guys.” Our values and interests constantly demand that we invade and overthrow and dominate other nations by force.

All these support the claim that we are indoctrinated by our own patriotic assumptions and benevolent superiority ideologies. It also indicates a double standard in the minds of the American people. We rejoice at the civil rights victory that was the election of Obama, a minority, as President of the United States, yet three days later that same administration murdered people in Pakistan with drones. We have become so indoctrinated and accustomed to this kind of behavior that allows for atrocity and injustice to occur in the same way that it did in Nazi Germany. These things are accomplished through the normalizing of totalitarian and imperialist behavior. It is seen clearly through the article “Drone Attacks in Pakistan Planned” by Eric Schmitt and Christopher Drew. In the article, a Senator Carl Levin acknowledged that “the price is very heavy” when civilians are killed but that the strikes are “an extremely effective tool.” The article goes on to state that these drones “typically supply the weapons targeting officers with enough information to avoid civilian casualties” and that mini-satellites can be used “to help confirm that the right people are being singled out for attack.” I would question whether the killing of the actual targets being “typically” the outcome is enough to justify their usage, but furthermore, we are assuming that we have the authority to justify the killing of people we have deemed are “the right people.”

It is also clear that even within the realm of debate and criticism on U.S. foreign policy, the same assumptions are still made. Even critics assume that the U.S. invaded for the purpose of spreading democracy, and criticize on the basis of whether or not the Iraqi people wanted our democracy. Critics still assume that the U.S. is there to help and that they are suffering because of it. Criticism rests on the basis of American casualties and cost and American motives are rarely questioned. I agree that within the supposedly “lively” debate that goes on, criticism only occurs in a very limited realm because presupposing party lines and holding unarticulated assumptions held by both opposing parties.

Perhaps this divide is inevitable for those in power in government, that is until these assumptions are brought into light, although I have seen more enlightened discussions coming from those that are less involved and less knowledgeable about these situations. I remember having debates in my high school government class regarding issues of foreign policy, and many, if not a majority of my classmates were asking the same questions that Herman and Chomsky were asking. Many of us questioned why the U.S. had the right to have military bases in other countries all over the world and why it had the right to go into Iraq unsolicited, and why it had the right to decide who should live and die in countries that have absolutely no say in the decisions we make. Maybe it takes some separation from the issues to see clearly the reality of the corruption. Perhaps it takes fresh, minds that have not yet been indoctrinated to rationalize about these issues, minds that have not yet bought into patriotized assumptions.

4. There have been three theories presented in this class as to why media is patriotized. W. Lance Bennett’s theory, which he calls the “indexing hypothesis,” can be summarized by saying that the media will only present options or criticism that has already filtered through the U.S. government. His theory says that the media follows the government’s lead when it comes to describing situations and in the range of debate. His stance is that the news media lacks the ability to creatively frame a story, and therefore what is projected is not really news but information put out by the government itself.

Robert Entman’s theory, which he names the “cascade model” presents the idea that the participants in the telling of each present information through a preferred frame that emphasizes specified aspects of issues or events and making connections that manipulate the interpretation on the side of the recipient. Each differing part- the President, Congress, the media, the masses- want their frame to be dominant, yet there is a hierarchy the leads to this cascading effect, where the the President and his administration has the most powerful frame, and the hierarchy descends to the people at the bottom who has the least accepted “frame.” Although Entman’s theory is very adaptable in not defining what the media will say or not say, he submits that even within this, there are certain limits that the foreign policy debate stays within. He highlights the fact that those events that are culturally congruent or psychologically comforting and discards those that are not.

The Herman-Chomsky Model is then referred to as the “propaganda model,” which is a market-based theory that explains the false picture of reality that results. They hold the idea there are five filters that screen out what does not fit into patriotic assumptions. These five assumptions are size- the ownership by a few mass media firms and their profit orientation, advertising as the primary source of income of mass media- audiences are sold to advertisers so numbers and buying power are to be maximized, source bias- much of the information put out by the media comes from government sources, major corporations, and experts who receive support and funding from these sources, flak- backlash when media sources draw too close the line of the invisible limits on debate and criticism, and anti-ideologies as a “national religion”- where anti-ideologies such as anticommunism or antiterrorism and campaigning for these issues result in an almost religious environment allows for emotionalism that lessens the need for weight of evidence.

The simpler claim that a patriotized history flows from the media producer’s own belief in the benevolent superiority ideology is clearly seen through the example of the article written by Kevin Sites that recounts his witness of the killing of unarmed, injured Iraqis by U.S. Marines. Sites’ disclaimer at the beginning of the article that he simply wants to give an account of what he saw “without imposing on that Marine-- guilt or innocence.” After telling the story, he said that he places trust in the U.S. news organizations to “handle a story responsibly,” logically interpreted to mean that these organizations will put these stories in as pro-U.S. a light as possible. Even taking this into account, Sites received a great amount of flak because of the negativity the story inspired toward the U.S., and he apologizes for not having a pro-U.S. bias.

How could it be possible to logically disagree with the fact that the media is bias when a reporter openly acknowledges that it is, and then apologizes for not being biased enough? He expresses that his pondering his decision to report these events “led to an agonizing struggle—the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.” I am then taken aback by his direct quote, saying “When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine’s actions.” Sites and NBC took every effort to make this injustice committed by the U.S. Marines look as favorable as possible, and it would be ignorant to think that this scenario is an isolated incident. This kind of behavior can be seen in the media throughout politics and the U.S. activity abroad.

As far as my own theory, I would say that I resonate most with the Herman-Chomsky assessment, especially the fifth assumption which speaks of anti-ideologies as a “national religion.” This assumption as well as an overt benevolent superiority ideology can be clearly seen through the quotation found at the end of the article of Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl: “We’re the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman’s war here—because we don’t behead people, we don’t come down to the same level of the people we’re combating.” Sites goes on to say that he believed these words. This is the kind of thinking that we are indoctrinated with from a very early age. We are taught that we are the good guys, that the U.S. military is a valiant force that spreads democracy and liberty throughout the world, and all the six assumptions that Herman and Chomsky say lead to a patriotized history. We are led to glorify the U.S. government is an almost religious way and carry out “holy wars” against terrorism, or those whom the government has deemed terrorists, despite whose behavior could accurately be characterized as terroristic. Sites speaks of his inner struggle surrounding his decision to publish the story, and seems to feel that is some sort of heroic figure, following his conscience despite the fact that this story butts head with these false ideologies. Even apart from the fact that these Marines were killing unarmed, injured Iraqis, the fact that this labeling mechanism of appropriate behavior and this assumed authority we have over who should live and who should be killed in another country remains unchallenged. An analogy given in class as to the mentality of Sites and presumably most of the media when criticizing the government was especially rousing when it was said that it was as if Sites was apologizing to the American people like a cheating husband, “I’m sorry, honey, I tried to hide it from you, but she’s living in our garage.” To me, this seems to be the dominant mentality of the media.

5. This analysis looks at examples of misrecognition through redefining terms, instances of assumptions theorized by Herman and Chomsky, as well as a general benevolent superiority ideology, concentrating on the U.S. action in Iraq.

“Detainees, some innocent, but many of them former insurgents long held in American military custody, are being set free every day, potentially increasing the insurgency's numbers. The American-Iraqi security agreement requires the release of all detainees in American custody unless there is sufficient evidence to bring charges in an Iraqi court.”-- This has several assumptions. One is that the U.S. has the authority to determine which detainees are innocent or not. Another is that the insurgents are that if they are being held in U.S. custody.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6481546534&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6481546537&cisb=22_T6481546536&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=14&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,13&docsInCategory=125&csi=6742&docNo=1

“They reflected an acknowledgment that more has to be done beyond the city's bounds to halt a relentless wave of insurgent attacks that have undercut attempts at political reconciliation.” – This assumes that the U.S. is the vessel that will bring reconciliation and fails to acknowledge that these “insurgents” may just be Iraqis resisting the U.S.’s involvement.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=9&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481546534

“For two weeks, in meetings with a score of members of Congress, Muhammad al-Daini, a Sunni Arab member of the Iraqi Parliament who says he has survived eight assassination attempts, has offered a well-practiced pitch that emphasizes the need for American troops to withdraw….He has publicly praised the Sunni insurgency for taking on American troops” – This article frames a man speaking on behalf of Iraq who opposes U.S. occupation as a suspicious negative figure. It presents alleged allegations against him where he seems clearly to simply be a voice of Iraqis who want a withdrawal of U.S. troops.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=6&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481829641

“Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally reconcile their differences?” – These questions allow for misrecognition by a giving a false dilemma. It leaves out the option that the U.S. could be the source of the conflict, and is loaded with an almost paternal superiority ideology, asking “Are these little children going to hurt each other, or can they work it out themselves if we let them?”
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=7&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481829641

“Some other analysts do not object to Mr. McCain's portraying the insurgency (or multiple insurgencies) in Iraq as that of Al Qaeda. They say he is using a ''perfectly reasonable catchall phrase'' that, although it may be out of place in an academic setting, is acceptable on the campaign trail, a place that ''does not lend itself to long-winded explanations of what we really are facing,''” – This is an example of this “national religion” and the anti-ideology of which Herman and Chomsky speak. This is basically saying that McCain should not have to explain our reasoning for occupation or what, exactly, we are fighting. It seems to sat that we should not be so skeptical as to question the details because of this ambiguous, looming statement about “what we really are facing.”
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=11&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481829641

“It is very likely any president would use air power to try to separate the sides. But whom do we target? If there are no good guys, do we bomb some civilians to save others?”—This is interesting as it demonstrates this “we own the world mentality” stated by Herman and Chomsky, as well as another false dilemma. The problem is presented as whose side the U.S. should take and fails to question whether the U.S. should be involved at all.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=12&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481829641

“But Democrats seized on the report, issuing a flurry of press releases portraying the administration's Iraq strategy as having failed.
''Further pursuit of the administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's best interests,'' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada”-- This is another demonstration of misrecognition as it misrecognizes who is truly the invader. In ordinary circumstances, the question asked would never be whether the best interests of the invading country were being served.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=13&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6481829641

“We are led to believe that resistance to our presence in Iraq stems from al-Qaeda, but insurgents don't carry membership cards with their rifles. In reality, the violence represents an age-old internal struggle for power among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. We could place a guard in every doorway in Iraq and reduce the violence to zero, but that would be little help in the long term.”—Even this criticism of our occupation demonstrates this assumption of jurisdiction. This critique asks whether it would help the peace to have guards there, and fails to question if we should be occupying the country, and whether we should be trying to help in the short of long term.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=2&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6482081188

“Now that he's president, Obama has to do what's best for the nation. In the case of Iraq, that means disengaging in a way that preserves hard-won gains and vital U.S. interests. If the cost of a stable Iraq involves narrowing the definition of "combat" troops and leaving thousands as "trainers" or "advisers," it is a price worth paying.”—This is a misrecognition example as the reader is led to misrecognize the U.S. an the invader. The only reason for withdrawing is for U.S. gains and interests, and no thought or value is given to the interests and gains of the Iraqi people.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=6&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6482081188

“Violence in Iraq has declined since the White House launched the "surge," a counterinsurgency strategy backed by 30,000 additional U.S. troops more than a year ago. The surge was meant to protect Iraqi civilians by moving U.S. troops off large bases and into neighborhoods.”—This is another example of a Herman-Chomsky assumption, assuming that the U.S. is benevolent in moving from its bases and into Iraqi neighborhoods, that they are protecting Iraqi civilians self-sacrificially. In reality, the U.S. is exercising control over the Iraqi civilians and claiming authority in a country that is not their own, often by violence which it claims to be standing against.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?start=11&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T6482081188