An Unstable Military

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/washington/10petraeus.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin


This article, entitled, "Iraq's Military Seen as Lagging,"focuses on both the Iraqi military, as well as the tactics and decisions made by the United States military and high-rank politicians. The article states that because our government officials do not think that the Iraqi military is prepared to handle things more on their own, the U.S. needs to keep more troops than originally planned in Iraq for a longer period of time. According to this article, there was supposed to be a troop build-up in July to ensure extra surveillance during the Iraq election in October, after which a fairly large number of troops would return home. Now, however, 15 more troops than originally planned, will remain in Iraq to help keep a stable state.

For the most part, this article is very dismal. One of the few optimistic moments happens towards the end of the article when it explains the head General's loose exit strategy resulting in our military presence as a "strategic overwatch." Other than this part of the article, however, the language used and the structure of certain sentences create a sad, pessimistic feeling for the readers. In the first sentence of the article, the author uses the words "bleak," and "unprepared." Other dark words used throughout the article include: frustrated, deteriorated, and the repetition the of the word unprepared. This article flows in a way that does seem to be more on the positive side. While the beginning may be the darkest part of the article, which automatically shifts the readers' perception, it lightens up towards the end, explaining a very rudimentary exit plan.