Military Intervention as Rhetorical Argument

Philip Hayek
WRD Grad Conference 5/15/2010

Annotated Bibliography of Introductory Materials

Orend, Brian. “Michael Walzer on Resorting to Force”. Canadian Journal of Political

Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp.
523-547. Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de
science Politique.

Orend discusses Walzer’s Just War Theory (JWT) as it pertains to intrastate conflict and
humanitarian intervention efforts. Orend contends that Walzer’s JWT and the criteria for
a just resort to force are based on six concepts taken from the just war tradition which
began with Augustine and Aquinas: Right intention, Proper authority and public
declaration, Last resort, Probability of Success, and Proportionality.

Orend, Brian. “Just and Lawful Conduct in War: Reflections on Michael Walzer”. Law
and Philosophy, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 1-30. Springer.

Orend discusses the implications of jus in bello and jus ad bellum, “justified ends may
only be pursued through justified means.
“If just wars are limited wars, designed to secure their just causes with only proportionate
force, the need for rules on wartime restraint is clear. Even though modem warfare has
displayed a disturbing tendency towards totality –particularly during the two World Wars
- it does not follow that the death of old-time chivalry marks the end of moral judgment.”

Ryan, David. “Framing September 11: Rhetorical Device and Photographic

Opinion”. European Journal of American Culture; 2004, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p5-
20

Ryan argues that the US created a rhetorical situation in order to respond to the
September 11 attacks. He states that “within days the ‘power to persuade’ had been used
effectively to…limit the scope of critical discussion”. He points out that the rhetoric of
Washington and of US culture worked to establish that the attacks were on both
geographical and ideological territory and that from this viewpoint “it was a short step to
the rhetoric of war”.

Butler, Michael J. “U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945-1994: An Empirical Inquiry

of Just War Theory”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr.,
2003), pp. 226-248. Sage Publications, Inc.

“War is policy carried out by other means”. Butler acknowledges an influx of studies of
war and conflict “in large part due to the changing nature of conflict since the end of the
cold war”, and discusses the role of the tradition of the JWT. Butler argues that “JWT at
its core is an informed inquiry into moral legitimacy of the state and state behaviors”.
Equating the nation-state with an actor in a rhetorical situation, Butler argues that the
peculiarity of American intervention “lies not in the frequency or level of violence
employed but in the propensity of US policymakers to seek harmony between pragmatic
applications of military might and America’s stated belief in peace and stability”. He
argues that this harmony is obtained through justice-based rhetoric like the JWT.
Butler also introduces a broader interpretation of “military intervention”:
Indirect military action can and does include crisis behavior such as deployment of
conventional forces to countries neighboring the conflict, major transfers in arms
and military hardware to one or more parties involved in the conflict, the dispatch
of military advisors to one or more parties involved in the conflict, the introduction
of extensive covert operations in one or more countries involved in the conflict, and
so forth.
Military intervention then, as understood by Butler is the use of military weaponry,
personnel or intelligence to alter the dynamics of a conflict.

Conclusions

If we look at conflicts between sovereign nation-states, or any defined, ideologically or

culturally bound groups, as two actors pursuing incompatible goals, we can see how
military intervention is rhetoric carried out by other means. Military intervention as
defined by Butler concludes that use of military resources is direct involvement in
altering the context of conflict and therefore the rhetorical situation. This perspective
lends itself to the possibility of studying interventions that successfully deterred conflict
and designing plans for rhetorically effective and efficient military mobilizations.

Hopefully by now we can recognize not only the function of rhetoric in justifying
military intervention but also the function of military intervention in rhetorical argument.
I aim to suspend the idea that military intervention is the ultimate failure of rhetorical
discourse and instead view these interventions as demonstrations, or performances of
power in order to send a rhetorical message. Rather than focus on the rhetoric of
politicians and journalists and analysts in justifying or condemning the motives of
intervention I want to look at how the actual military operations function as rhetorical
argument of the state, locating exigence (threat of aggression), audience on a global
stage, and constraints including those implied by the Just War Theory and public opinion.
Situating military intervention as rhetorical argument, I believe, is an effective way of
studying how and why and which military actions are necessary and effective in
maintaining stability between actors, or nation-states, or ideologically and culturally
bound groups.

Events to Consider

A brief conversation with a captain in the US Army Rangers led me to a three specific
events, which I plan on studying along these lines.

The 1965 US occupation of the Dominican Republic after a coup by a right-wing military
faction took control. The US sent 20,000 troops as fears grew that the revolutionary
forces were coming increasingly under Communist control, thereby preventing a “second
Cuba” in the Caribbean.

The 1983 US invasion of Grenada, codenamed Operation Urgent Fury where we sent
7,600 troops to defeat Grenadian resistance and the military government of Hudson
Austin. This act of intervention was condemned by many, including the UN as a violation
of international law, but nonetheless is valuable as the only case in the Cold War where a
Communist state was successfully changed back to a Democratic Capitalist nation before
the Revolutions of 1989.

The Iraq war as a deterrent for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. The stated aim of the war
was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, however, it doesn’t seem to have worked
out that way since they still are pursuing WMDs at all costs. This outcome is invaluable
in examining how and why military intervention as rhetorical argument can fail its
intended purposes.