Argumentative Strategies in Documents Regarding Iraq War

After reading the document on argumentation strategies, it was easy to notice the clear an deliberate qualities in "War and Wisdom" that define it as an argument. The article is not only divided into sections, but these sections are clear indicators of types of strageties being put into direct use. The piece begins with a clear and meaningful claim. Then the author goes on to provide authority by citing generals as havng opposition, with direct quotes. He goes on with analogies about the war, the US, Sadaam, and Iraq. He even provides concessions in claiming that Bush was right for waving a red flag, but then goes on to indict him for following through with inappropriate action. The piece continues with evidence and warrants about the cost of war, summed up with a rebuttal about how the money could be better spent.

The other articles about the war were just as argumentative, but as a whole, they seemed much less organized and precise than thier predecessor. They did, however, use a language of ethos and a personal tone that often felt much less critical or formal than "War and Wisdom". They did provide counterexamples, for instance of Sadaam's brutality, which were then followed up by showing a lack of evidence to support a war. It seemed that the body of the works were mostly made up of qualification. Finally, some of the pieces also seemed to show holes in other's contrasting arguments as a means to strengthen their own arguments. Overall, I was much more impressed by the organized manner of argument that was achieved in "War and Wisdom".