Emily Hertrich
Communication 101
Professor Wendy Atkins-Sayre
April 10, 2000
Rhetorical Criticism of President George Bush’s
Announcement of Allied Forces’ Air Raid on Iraq
Introduction
One of the most exciting genres of rhetoric to study is war rhetoric. It is packed with
language that excites the senses. It follows a compelling dramatic structure. It features a battle
of good versus evil. What follows is a rhetorical criticism of war rhetoric, in particular, Bush’s
address to the American people announcing that U.S. armed forces were launching air raids on
Iraqi military targets in Kuwait. By adopting a dramatistic critical perspective, we can better
understand and appreciate this rhetorical act.
Historical Context
The world was shocked when, on August 2, 1990, Iraq executed a “lightning-fast”
invasion of Kuwait (Yetiv 11). Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, ordered the invasion in the
hopes that it would end the economic depression in Iraq while strengthening Iraq’s standing
among Middle Eastern powers. The United Nations responded quickly, imposing economic
sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions and repeated attempts at peaceful negotiations failed to
convince the Iraqis to retreat. Finally, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution: Hussein
had until January 15 to evacuate, after which the U.N. approved the use of “all necessary means”
to route out the Iraqis. Immediately after the deadline passed, a U.S.-led United Nation’s air
force conducted an air raid on Baghdad, aimed at destroying prime Iraqi military targets.
President George Bush’s January 16, 1991 speech arose out of a dual need: to justify the
United States’ military involvement in the Persian Gulf crisis and to win public support for this
and future military actions. As President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the
United States armed forces, it was expected that Bush make a statement before the American
people. Moreover, there was an urgent need for Bush to explain the air raids, for just two
months before the air raid, public opinion polls showed that an “overwhelming majority of
Americans…wanted to wait for economic sanctions to work rather than resort to military action”
(German 293). Bush was faced with a hostile—or at least, doubtful—audience that spread even
across political lines. Republican Senator John McCain, a staunch supporter of Bush, warned:
“…if you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode
significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading
American blood for Iraqi blood” (Smith 140).
Bush was able to reach the American people with the aid of the media. Within the day of
the air raid, he was on television screens across America. According to Kathleen German, the
speech “reputedly [was] seen by the largest American television audience in history” (292).
An understanding of United States foreign relations in the fifty years preceding the
Persian Gulf Crisis is essential to understanding the rhetoric of Bush’s speech. The most
significant historical event that influenced Bush’s rhetoric was the Vietnam War—the primary
cause of American’s unwillingness to use military force in the Middle East. In the eyes of most
Americans, the Vietnam War has become, as Mary E. Stuckey puts it, “shorthand for the divisive
potential of protracted military involvement in a distant country” (247). It is a national symbol
of the “bad” war. In order to bolster public support for the war effort, Bush’s speech would have
to persuade people that the Gulf War would “not be another Vietnam.”
The second most significant historical event that influenced Bush’s rhetoric was World
War II. Two months after Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, Bush was reading a history
book on the second world war. The President, a WWII veteran, told the New York Times:
“…there’s a parallel between what Hitler did to Poland and what Saddam Hussein has done to
Kuwait” (Bennett and Paletz, 63). Recalling the number of atrocities Adolf Hitler committed
after Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement, Bush personally decided there would be no
concessions allowed Hussein. His statement before the American public reflects this urgency:
“Why act now?…The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer.”
Descriptive Analysis
The urgency of Bush’s need to address the American people is also carried over to the
tone he adopts in his public address. He immediately grabs the attention of the audience with his
first declarative sentence: “Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets
in Iraq and Kuwait.” As Bush’s purpose is to win public support for U.S. military intervention in
the Persian Gulf Crisis, he uses a dramatic structure and forceful parallel phrases to create a
sense of urgency, a desire in the audience to rally behind the war effort in order to stop Hussein.
The main point of the first half of the speech is to explain the transgressions of the
“enemy,” Saddam Hussein. Bush uses dualistic “us”/“them” language to construct a vision of
reality in which Saddam, Iraq, and the Iraqis stand in opposition to the United States, the United
Nations, and even the world. Bush begins by explaining the origins and development of the
Persian Gulf Crisis with a dramatic narrative approach. The rising action of the narrative style
not only heightens the sense of urgency, but it functions also as a type of enthymeme—an
aesthetic technique in which the rhetor presents an argument “in such a way that audience
members participate in its creation” (Campbell and Burkholder 30). Thus, Bush does not state
outright the justifications for U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Rather, as the
narrative unfolds, it leads the audience to come to that conclusion on its own. He finishes the
narrative of what happened with what was happening in the present: the U.N. alliance had
“exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution.” At this point, the narrative has
generated a sense of inevitability, driving the audience to come to agree with Bush’s conclusion
even before he had the chance to say it: There was “no choice but to drive Saddam from Kuwait
by force.”
Once the narrative is finished, Bush continues to drive the speech forward with forceful
parallel phrasing. He begins with “We will not fail.” What follows is a lengthy series of clear,
concise statements of the U.N.’s objectives repeatedly using the word will: “Saddam Hussein’s
forces will leave Kuwait…Kuwait will once again be free…Iraq will eventually comply…Iraq
will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations…” (emphasis mine).
Bush engages the audience, grabbing their attention by catching them off guard—he
answers their doubts before they can even raise them: “Some may ask: Why act now? Why not
wait?” He responds with a series of arguments for action, again using a parallel phrase to keep
up the momentum of the speech: “While the world waited…” He uses affective, vivid language
to depict the horrors that result from appeasing a dictator like Saddam Hussein: “…Saddam
Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation…” Bush concludes these
arguments for action by reiterating the point that U.N. attempts to get Iraqi forces to leave
Kuwait failed repeatedly. Thus Bush states: “Regrettably, we now believe that only force will
make him leave” (emphasis mine).
Next, Bush makes a transition to the second point of his speech: “While the world prayed
for peace, Saddam prepared for war.” His tone softens as he adopts a different persona than that
of President of the United States and Commander in Chief. He becomes a humanitarian. This
half of the speech focuses on the American public’s responsibility to right the wrongs committed
by Hussein. More than just a responsibility, however, Bush makes this enterprise an
“opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order” (emphasis
mine). He creates the audience as humanitarians, working in unanimity as members of a great
“family of nations” (the U.N.) and even “the world” to promote peace and justice through the
“liberation” of Kuwait. By emphasizing that the actions of the U.S. were just a small part of a
worldwide movement, Bush gives members of the audience a sense of belonging and purpose,
which in turn sparks in them a desire for action.
Bush quotes four members of the military as evidence to support the use of military
intervention for the purpose of liberating Kuwait. Again, using repetition, he asks the American
public, “Listen to…” these men and woman, because at least they “know why they’re there.” He
paints a romanticized picture of the military, emphasizing that they are an “all-volunteer force,
magnificently trained, [and] highly motivated.” They are worthy of the pride and support of the
American public. In fact, Bush puts the words in the audience’s mouth: “Tonight, America and
the world are deeply grateful to them and to their families.” He speaks on behalf of the audience
again when he says, “Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers.”
Here, Bush reinforces the moral-humanitarian theme with an appeal to religion. He closes the
speech by asking that God bless the efforts of the allied forces in the Gulf and the United States
of America.
Critical Perspective
The aesthetic ways in which Bush uses structure and language as a means to motivate his
audience compelled me to adopt the dramatistic approach as my critical lens. Dramatic criticism
is greatly influenced by Kenneth Burke’s theories of symbolic interaction. It examines the
artistic aspects of the rhetorical act, focusing on how the rhetor strategically uses symbolic
language to create a vision of “reality” that will incite the audience to action. It also looks at the
form of the message, how structure is not simply a means of logical organization, but a strategic
method of motivation. Dramatistic criticism also takes into account the fact that certain genres
of speeches will have an expected structure and set of symbols. Bush’s speech is an example of
the genre of war rhetoric.
One of the theories behind dramatistic criticism is that a rhetor develops his or her speech
around one of five featured terms—act, scene, agent, agency, or purpose—and depending upon
which term the rhetor highlights, one can understand the rhetor’s perspective on the issue. In the
first half of Bush’s speech, he recounts the only the transgressions of Saddam Hussein without
concern for why Hussein committed them. This suggests he adopted what Burke calls a realist
perspective, a philosophy linked to the term act. The philosophy corresponding to the term
purpose is mysticism, a perspective that underscores a higher purpose is at work. Bush’s call for
“a new world order” suggests that he has adopted this perspective.
Another aspect of dramatistic criticism that applies to Bush’s speech is his use of
language and cultural symbols and ideology to create unanimity amongst the members of his
expansive audience. Bush repeatedly invokes the word “we” and draws upon some of America’s
popular national symbols and cultural ideologies to relate himself to the audience and the
audience members to one another. Burke calls this technique identification and
consubstantiability.
Evaluation
Using the dramatistic perspective as a critical lens, Bush’s speech is an excellent example
of good rhetoric. It follows the generic structure for war rhetoric and emphasizes the featured
terms act and purpose to justify the use of force in the Persian Gulf. Also, throughout the speech
Bush uses language and a set of cultural symbols and ideology to unite the American public and
motivate them to stand behind the war effort.
First, Bush follows the conventions of war rhetoric by explaining the act, or what
precipitated the need for action. According to Campbell and Jamieson, this is an essential
element of war rhetoric: “…forceful intervention is justified through a chronicle or narrative
from which argumentative claims are drawn” (105). Bush utilizes a dramatic narrative structure
to explain the act. The climactic narrative form intensifies the act and works as an enthymeme
that creates a sense of inevitability. As Burke states, form can act as “the creation of an appetite
in the mind of the auditor, and the adequate satisfying of that appetite”(Campbell and Burkholder
96). As the story unfolds, Bush pulls in the audience, whetting their appetite and then satisfying
them with the inevitable conclusion that force is necessary.
Burke says that the corresponding philosophy of the featured term act is a realist
philosophy. By adopting this realist perspective, Bush is not concerned with anything but the act
that took place. He does not mention the fact that Hussein ordered the invasion for several
reasons, primarily because Kuwait was “ignoring oil production quotas, keeping oil prices down,
refusing to forgive Iraq’s debts from the Iran-Iraq war, and failing to extend reconstruction credit
to Iraq” (Yetiv 6). In adopting Burke’s dramatistic criticism, however, “truth” becomes an
especially relative term. Under this critical perspective, it is okay that Bush is highly selective in
the facts he chooses to state in the narrative. In fact, part of why Bush’s rhetoric is so good is
because he creates a vision of “reality” that works well to accomplish his ultimate purpose—
winning public support. Campbell and Jamieson even count this limited vision reality as an
essential characteristic of war rhetoric: “…strategic misrepresentations play an unusually
significant role in its appeals…” (105).
Bush describes the act with affective, vivid language to make the audience feel angry—
Saddam Hussein invaded, “crushed,” “brutalized,” “raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation”
that had posed “no threat” to elicit such horrors. This vivid language functions to demonize
Saddam Hussein and create a common feeling of anger among members of the audience.
Throughout the first half of the speech, as Bush is explaining the act, he emphasizes Hussein as
the actor. The agent sparking the conflict is not identified as the Iraqi army, or even Iraq in
general. Instead, Bush clearly states: “This conflict started August 2nd when the dictator of Iraq
invaded a small and helpless neighbor.” As Bush goes on to give the numerous justifications for
action, he states in parallel phrases: “While the world waited Saddam…” committed one
aggressive act after another. By constructing Hussein as the agent of the ignoble act, Bush
personalizes the enemy, providing the audience with clearer target for their anger than say, if
Bush emphasized the country or the army as the aggressor.
This intentional demonization of “the enemy” is another important characteristic of war
rhetoric. Bush effectively uses what Burke calls ultimate terms—some scholars use Phillip
Wander’s term, prophetic dualism—to divide the world into two realities: good and evil.
Dualistic language is a means of “legitimating leadership, stifling debate, and forestalling
compromise” (Stuckey 247). In other words, if Saddam is the enemy, the “other,” that makes
“us” the good guys. “We” is a rather ambiguous term used by Bush throughout the speech. At
times, “we” refers to the U.S.. Other times, “we” refers to the U.N. or the world in general. In
every case, however, it is a good rhetorical strategy. It creates a point of identification and
consubstantiability that unifies Bush with his audience and the members of the audience to one
another, thus generating a sense of unanimous support for the war effort.
Support for the war effort was the goal of Bush’s public address. As mentioned in the
historical section above, one of the primary obstacles to public support was the memory of the
Vietnam War. People feared that U.S. military intervention in a distant foreign conflict would
lead to another Vietnam, a national symbol of a military disaster that violently divided the
American population. Bush effectively uses this well-known symbol in his speech to promise
what the Gulf War would not be. He specifically states, “…this will not be another Vietnam.”
Throughout the speech, Bush appeals to people’s desire to overcome Vietnam. He does two
things that Americans believed Vietnam failed to do: state the war objectives clearly and
promises a quick, yet cautious plan of attack.
Stuckey and German both suggest another strategy that Bush used to help the American
public get past their fear that the Persian Gulf War would turn into another Vietnam. They assert
that he counteracted the Vietnam image of the “bad war” with the World War II image of the
“good war.” As stated above, in the historical section, Bush was a WWII veteran and clearly
drew a parallel between Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
However, he never explicitly mentions WWII in this speech. Even still, as Stuckey argues,
Bush’s casts the Persian Gulf War as a “just war” like WWII by using the dominant rhetoric that
President Franklin D. Roosevelt used during WWII: prophetic dualism (Stuckey 247). By
adopting the vision of a world divided between good and evil, Roosevelt was “framing the
conflict in moral terms, invoking…the laws of God and the United States’ superior access to
those laws” (Stuckey 247). German also points out that Bush adopts “priestly language” as in
Bush’s closing when he asks God to bless the armed forces, their families, and the United States.
Earlier, Bush says “the world prayed for peace” and that he, himself, was praying for the
innocent people caught up in this conflict. These appeals to morality occur in the second half of
Bush’s speech—the half in which his urgent tone softens as he adopts the role of humanitarian
and turns the focus from act to purpose.
The corresponding philosophy to Burke’s featured term purpose is mysticism, which
underscores the idea that there is a higher purpose at work. In the words of German, this appeal
to the “supernatural assumes a preeminent order which transcends either the mundane secular
concerns or the selfish interests of the individual” (293). Thus, Bush asserts that Hussein’s
invasion of Kuwait disturbed this natural order. Now, Bush creates his audience as
humanitarians, bolstering their pride by convincing them that they are superior to the enemy. He
offers them the “opportunity” to support his decision to fight for what he calls “a new world
order.” He uses abstract, but culturally charged symbolic language that reflects romanticized
American ideals of peace, justice, and democracy. He says “Our goal is not the conquest of Iraq.
It is the liberation of Kuwait” (emphasis mine).
Bush incorporates the testimony of four members of the armed forces as his supporting
evidence for the fight to restore order. Unlike in Vietnam, these soldiers are part of an “allvolunteer force” and they “know why they’re there [in the Persian Gulf].” Their statements use
highly emotive language, stirring up patriotism for America, the land of the free, and creating a
sense that the U.S. is not fighting this war alone, like in Vietnam. Rather, the U.S. is a part of a
greater movement by the U.N., the world, and mankind. Thus, the audience can feel united in
pursuing this one great purpose. Hollywood Huddleston states: “Let’s free these people, so we
can go home and be free again” Bush adds: “The terrible crimes and tortures committed by
Saddam’s henchmen against the innocent people of Kuwait are an affront to mankind and a
challenge to the freedom of all.” J.P. Kendall claims, “What we’re doing is going to chart the
future of the world for the next 100 years.” Finally, Jackie Jones says in an urgent tone, “If we
let him get away with this, who knows what’s going to be next?”
We have looked at the ways in which Bush’s rhetoric meets the artistic criteria of
dramatistic criticism through his strategic use of structure and culturally symbolic language to
motivate people to support the war effort. What Bush’s speech fails to do, however, is meet the
ethical criteria for a good speech. In creating a limited vision of the conflict in the Persian Gulf
and using emotionally charged symbols to motivate his audience, Bush is convincing the
American people to follow his lead and enter into a military endeavor without understanding the
situation in its entirety. It is almost like a form of false advertising. While it might be highly
effective as a means of persuasion, this approach is unethical in that it sets a bad precedent for
future rhetoric.
Conclusion
Bush’s speech is an excellent example of what Burke asserts is the power of symbols to
incite people to action. It also demonstrates how we can be moved by the artistic choices of the
rhetor: compelling rhetorical structures and strategic language. These are valuable lessons and
significant contributions to advancing the future of rhetoric. However, there is need for rhetors
to take on a measure of ethical responsibility when setting out to motivate audiences to take
action. How different is Bush’s rhetoric from that of dictators like Hussein and Hitler? Isn’t he
painting a picture of half-truths to serve his own political agenda? After evaluating Bush’s
speech, we should take with us a better understanding of how rhetors can strategically create a
vision of reality and lay it before us, the audience. Knowing this, I hope we can all take more
responsibility upon ourselves as audience members to investigate and challenge the rhetoric that
we hear.
Bibliography
Bennett, W. Lance and David L. Paletz. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in
the Gulf War. American Politics and Political Economy Series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1994.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs and Thomas R. Burkholder. Critiques of Contemporary Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres
of Governance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
German, Kathleen M. “Invoking the Glorious War: Framing the Persian Gulf Conflict Through Directive
Language.” The Southern Communication Journal 60.4 (Summer 1995): 292-302.
The History Place: Great Speeches. “President George Bush Announcing War Against Iraq.” URL:
HYPERLINK http://wwwlhistoryplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm
Smith, Jean Edward. George Bush’s War. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1992.
Stuckey, Mary E. “Remembering the Future: Rhetorical Echoes of World War II and Vietnam in George Bush’s
Public Speech on the Gulf War.” Communication Studies 43.4 (Winter 1992): 246-256.
Yetiv, Steve A. The Persian Gulf Crisis. Guides to Historic Events of the Twentieth Century. Westport:
Greenwood Press, 1997.