Reply #2: Thanks! [View All]

I really appreciate the feedback. It will help me revise. And of course you may quote my article (for now, you can cite the URL-- hopefully it will be published soon).

The opening part that you found redundant is the abstract; journals want writers to condense the point of the essay up front so readers can decide if they want to go into it. I repeated the main points later because some readers skip the abstract and go straight to the piece.

I agree that I need to refute the "Anti-American" argument. I believe Chomsky has addressed it recently. I can quote him.

The argument about soldiers defending our right to speak I heard at many rallies where pro-war goons showed up carrying signs and yelling things to that effect. It's not a very articulate argument, but it is one nonetheless. The one you articulate, that anti-war protesters were "sympathizing with the enemy" and thus endangering the troops I address under the effectiveness of troops. Perhaps I could expand that part to include and refute the "sympathizing with the enemy" bit.

In your response, you write "I find the argument that 'If the war itself is needless, then the war itself certainly endangers the troops' needlessly hard to follow in the context of endangerment. How do you jump from needless to endangerment? There's a disconnect in the logic of this argument." Any suggestions for how can I improve this section? My goal was to argue that it's not criticism of the war that endangers the troops, it's the war itself, an unnecessary war at that.

The point about state secrets being sensitive in some cases is well-taken and it would be a long argument to get into, but the principle of "secret knowledge" being unverifiable to outsiders is nonetheless true. Do you think I need to go into a longer discussion (i.e. some state secrets might be real, while others are phony . . . )?

I included the dialogue about flags as an example of someone trying to evade my argument by calling my patriotism into question. Perhaps I could dispense with it and still make the same point.

How's this for a capper to the Canadian admission:
"Before anyone accuses me of a lack of patriotism, let me admit that I am a Canadian citizen, though I love the U.S. and therefore I don't want to see it hurt by false patriots."

Yes the audience for this paper is largely academic.

Your point about criticism being a sign of untrustworthiness cutting both ways is well taken. I might add that bit.

The part about Nietzsche and Socrates is aimed specifically at my intended readership, which is scholars of rhetoric.

Although some anti-war protesters perhaps did display inappropriate emotions at times, I would characterize the movement overall as very emotionally "appropriate" and the pro war movement overall as emotionally "inappropriate." Should I go into the exceptions?

My point at the end was not to attack Powell's credibility (though that would be a nice unintended effect). Rather I wanted to take apart his argument that Americans should feel pride everytime we invade another country. I was attacking his use of pathos, but to do so I had to attack the logical premises on which that pathetic argument (in both senses of the term) was based.

Please do add more comments or respond to mine as you see fit. I appreciate all of your comments and am very grateful you took the time to write.

Best,

Barry