| Description |
The discourse of Iraqi and U.S. political players During Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2011) is more complex that it seems. It is a collage of rhetorical strategies and epistemic knowledges used by multiple agents to rhetorically construct themselves, their opponents, and the context within which they operated. In Operation Iraqi Freedom: Transitional Rhetoric, Oscillating Politics, I use critical rhetoric as a theoretical lens to argue that while the official U.S. discourse has been largely consistent in constructing the United States as a strong, but righteous, power, the discourse of Iraqi political players, both state and nonstate actors, was more nuanced and less explicit than is often thought. The discourse of the Iraqi political players moves from ostensible discursive docility articulated before and shortly after 2003 but later becomes a resistant discourse that challenges the U.S. hegemonic project and its expansionist agenda in the Middle East. I examine the discourse of the two sides, identifying the political and cultural epistemes upon which that discourse has been built. The cases highlighted in this project are points of contention during which discursive articulations were constructed in favor of one side and/or the other. My textual material was collected both in the United States and in Iraq. I use dominant and marginal discourse to understand how hegemonic powers promote their thought around the world and how antihegemonic, or at least nonhegemonic, groups fluctuate between docility and resistance depending on the nature of political challenges iv facing them. I hope that the following pages help communication scholars in general and critical rhetoricians in particular better understand what happened during Operation Iraqi Freedom and how the political players communicated during times of serious contentions. My goal is to contribute to the rhetorical scholarship on the rhetoric of war, particularly the Iraq War, to explain how juxtaposing the discourse of Iraqi political players and their U.S. counterparts may give readers new insights on the rhetoric of war and the dialogical relationship between the rhetorical strategies operationalized by the involved parties. |
