Argumentation and fallacy in newspaper op / ed coverage of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq

Author： Wilson John Sahlane Ahmed Somerville Ian

Publisher： John Benjamins Publishing Company

E-ISSN： 1569-9862|11|1|1-30

ISSN： 1569-2159

Source： Journal of Language and Politics, Vol.11, Iss.1, 2012-01, pp. : 1-30

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

This study examines how the pre-war debate of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was discursively constructed in pro- and anti-war newspaper op/ed argumentation. Drawing on insights from argumentation theory, and using these within a framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, we explore fallacious arguments within the ‘justification discourse’ used in the pro-war opinion/editorials (op/eds). We argue that the type of arguments marshalled by the pro-war op/ed commentators uncritically bolstered the set of U.S. official ‘truth claims’ and ‘presuppositions’. Conversely, anti-war op/ed debaters dismissed the Bush administration’s ‘neo-imperialistic’ reasoning and called into question the logic of militarist ‘humanitarianism’ by arguing that brute force and daylight ‘plunder,’ found in the language of a ‘noble ideal,’ were part of a long Western colonialist tradition that glorified the West as the ‘civiliser’ of distant cultural others.