Within Liam Kennedy’s scholarly article,” Soldier photography: visualizing the war in Iraq,” he considers the possible ramifications that will arise from the new sensation of soldiers taking war-time photos and the creation of the “miliblog” (820). After a lengthy introduction, filled with background information, Kennedy clearly states his thesis. Kennedy plans to “consider the implications of the opening of real-time windows on the American soldier at war” (819). Through the use various interviews with soldier bloggers, Kennedy is able to craft a dynamic rhetorical article that values the use of soldier photography and its “historical significance” (833).
Throughout Kennedy’s article, the most powerful rhetorical devises that he uses are his primary sources. Deftly, he utilizes these sources to emphasize that the purpose of “miliblogging” is not to exploit the government, but instead for “their personal stories and perspectives” (819). These various sources are utilized in a many different ways, but all for one common goal. He talks to a Captain Daniel Bout, who blogs frequently about the unfortunate deaths of his brothers in arms (820). Captain Bout’s story a strong appeal to pathos. Kennedy wants his readers to sympathize with the Captain and his story. He wants us to join the “online therapy session” that this particular miliblog is used for (820). While many sources are used by Kennedy to show different aspects of solider photography, he mainly focuses on the mundane images (833). He creates the argument that the mundane images are not only beneficial, but are “slowly building into what will become one of the most complete archival records of the experience of war” (833). Since these mundane images provide us with new information about how war is experienced by the soldiers, the historical significance is unprecedented. This beautifully crafted argument does not have the same message without the primary sources.
While Kennedy’s argument is wonderfully written, he does provide a compelling counter argument. He also argues that the “blurring of the boundaries” between the legality of these photos and the freedom of speech that our citizens have the right to is a problem for our government (833). While he does argue this point, he never gets a source to talk heavily about this. He focuses most of his sources on the importance of the mundane images, but rarely talks about the legality of graphic photos being released. He writes a whole section on the “more graphic representations of the violent war experiences,” yet he fails to get a source to talk about it (829). This failure weakens not only his counter-argument, but also his main thesis.
Ultimately, the argument that Kennedy creates is extremely convincing. The perspective he presents is bold, yet refreshing. He refrains from persecuting the soldiers for their blogs and actually glorifies their everyday struggles. The new perspective that soldier photography brings the citizens of the United States is incredible. The American people can finally see war how it truly is, through the eyes of soldiers.
olawrence3 