The Iconic IED

The caption to this Sept. 30 Washington Post article caught my eye:

"The IED is the signature weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan, as iconic as the machine gun in World War I or Persian Gulf War's laser-guided "'smart bomb.'"

I suppose this struck me because it's interesting to think of an "icon" as a weapon. If I were to think of the icons of, say, WWII, I would think of Rosie the Riveter, or the picture of the raised flag at Iwo Jima, or other similarly inspiring and patriotic icons of the time. But in thinking that, I realize that I have almost been sucked into the propaganda that those strong, upbeat images are meant to convey. Perhaps the result of labeling a weapon the "icon" of a war evokes the truer meaning of war itself, bringing to light its dark side, which should not be ignored.

Swastika From Above

This swastika-shaped building complex is a U.S. Naval barracks in Coronodo, California whose unfortunate shape was discovered by the all-seeing eye of Google Earth. The buildings were built in the 1960s, and according to the Navy, the shape wasn't discovered until the project had already broken ground, which according to the Switched article, made it too late to modify the designs.

The revelation of this shape caused a number of conspiracy theories to arise. According the article, the buildings sit at the intersection of Tulagi and Bougainville, two streets named after famous WWII battles. Another theory in a different report is that the buildings turned sideways are actually hiding Calvary crosses, which, when combined with the swastika, relate very much to the Schlageter Memorial (Albert Schlageter being an icon for the Nazi youth pre-World War II.) Still another believes that the crosses point in a direct line to Jerusalem.

As a result of the controversy caused by this aerial discovery of this building, the Navy plans to spend upwards of $600,000 to camouflage the structure with landscaping, walkways and solar cells, all of which will hide the offending shape from aerial views. In my opinion, this further proves that well-known symbols such as the swastika can not ever truly be "re-owned," and will instead always carry the cultural meaning that has been assigned to them.

Suing God

I recently read an article in the Washington Post about a state senator from Nebraska who was so sick and tired of people suing everyone for everything that he decided to make a point by suing God. The senator, Ernie Chambers, cited that God had made terroristic threats against him and his constituents, inspired fear, and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants." (Click here for full article.)

The article struck me for two reasons. One, it is a clever form of verbal rhetoric attempting to appeal to people's common sense by relying on shock-value tactics. The second reason is the photo that the Washington Post deliberately chose to include with the article. This photo is not a photo of Sen. Chambers during his lawsuit. Rather, it is an AP file photo from April 12, 2006 that shows the senator in the middle of a debate in the legislative chamber in Lincoln, Neb. Positioned behind his head is what appears to be a rotating fan, but when looking at the picture as a whole, has a definite halo look to it.

While this may have been the Post's attempt at humor (which is how I took it), I think there is also the potential for the religious undertones of the photo to impact the story. By making it look like Sen. Chambers is wearing a halo, it appears as though he is on God's level, and thus, is able to sue Him. This could potentially further offend readers who may have already found offense in the Senator's actions. On the flipside, it may also mock the Senator's method of making his point.

(As a side note, interestingly enough, when I went to go to the page to write this response, the image was no longer available. I'm not sure if it's my computer or not, but perhaps some offense was taken by one party or another?)

Petraeus or Betray Us?

The text reads:

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
Cooking the Books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architext of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress." Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years. Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

This ad was placed in the New York Times on September 10 by liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org. While it attempted to draw attention to the allegedly skewed facts of Patraeus' report to Congress, the ad instead "angered Republicans." Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a presidential candidate, brought the ad to the September 10 Patraeus hearing and waved it in the air, telling lawmakers he was "irritated" by it. Senator Gordon Smith, one of the few Republican senators who supports legislation ordering troop withdrawals, told reporters that "Petraeus' testimony and the MoveOn.org ad were the two biggest factors in keeping Republicans from breaking ranks with the president: Petraeus' testimony because it was persuasive and the MoveOn ad because it went too far by attacking a popular uniformed officer" (breitbart.com).

While attempting to utilize both logos and pathos (by making the public question whether or not they were being betrayed by a trusted official), MoveOn.org's piece of visual/verbal rhetoric also had the effect of evoking anger from public officials to the point where the very next week they voted 72-25 to officially condemn the ad. This reaction of "how dare Americans question what we are telling them" seems frighteningly Big Brotherish to me, and almost a violation of the very freedoms that the troops in Iraq are supposedly fighting to defend.

Unfortunately, this piece of rhetoric also served as "a life raft for the Republican party as the war debate kicked into high gear. With several Republicans opposed to President Bush's war strategy, GOP members were able to put aside their differences and rally around their disapproval of the ad" (USA Today). It seems a shame to me that the same passion and fervor in developing and passing legislation could not be applied to more important issues, but perhaps this was also MoveOn.org's point--that the U.S. government cares more about its image than getting anything real accomplished. But, on the other hand, does a piece of rhetoric that serves to unite the very people it is speaking out against truly serve its purpose?

Leave Nothing

This new Nike commercial has been played throughout the 2007 football season thus far. As a football fan, I can't help but get chills everytime I see it. As a student of rhetoric, I can't help but notice the blatant use of pathos that elicit strong feelings towards the sport of football. The music in the background is from the Last of the Mohicans soundtrack, and as LT, Shawn Merriman, and Antonio Gates plow down the field through other players and the elements, the rhythmic battle music crescendos, growing in intensity. As the featured players hit other players, the noise of the hit and heavy breathing conveys how hard they are working; this is the only language spoken in the entire commercial. The dramatic cutoff at the end of the commercial shows the audience that leaving it all on the field means everything; not that winning doesn't matter, but that the players on the field should be emulated and honored for leaving nothing behind, much as we do our battle heroes. Considering our nation's out and out obsession with the sport, I'm actually considering exploring the use of rhetoric in football and its related propaganda for my final project.

Ethos

This old ad utilizes ethos, or "credibility," to entice consumers to smoke cigarettes by saying that doctors prefer them. By associating this particular brand with the authority that doctors have in determining what is healthy and what is not, this appeal attempts to associate Camel cigarettes with health, and thus encourage people to smoke this brand because it is healthier. Today, this ad is quite humorous, as we now know that the true health effects of smoking make it something that a doctor would never condone.