Interest groups

Oh hey the military is a thing. Also, it just so happens to be an issue that I chose to research last week. More specifically, I chose two different interest groups who focus on the issue. On the off chance that you're not Mr.Dalton, an interest group is a group that lobbies for a certain issue, basically researching an fighting for an issue that they wish to change. Once they have a formulated opinion, they tell political representatives about the issue and what they should do about it. The two groups that I researched were the Veterans For Peace (VFP) and the  Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

Let's begin with Veterans For Peace, because I said so. VFP is a liberal interest group fighting for peace. They strive to raise awareness of the cost of war, reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles, and seek justice for veterans/victims of war. So far, they have created over 120 chapters across the US and abroad. In addition, they've worked on countless (actually just 8) national projects, their most recent being the Golden Rule Peace Boat, a restored peace boat. A good example of what the group stands for (aka an artifact) is their introduction video, named Peace at Home, Peace Abroad. You can watch it down below, or just read the main points.

Main Points:

1. The cost of war is far too expensive, not simply due to the economical cost, but the emotional and human cost as well. 
2. We must raise awareness to the costs and causes of war, so we can find a way to reduce them. 
3. VFP strives to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles, hopefully eliminating them eventually.
4. VFP also strives to seek justice for veterans/victims of war.

Overall, the video makes a clear message of what the organization fights for. However, there are a few flaws that I could point out. If I were to hypothetically analyze the video, I would most likely say that the two main appeals are pathos and ethos. They use anecdotes from actual war veterans, because many people harbor a general respect for them. This would help build credibility for the organization, from the veterans. In addition, pathos is utilized to appeal to the viewers hearts, making them feel horrified at the reality of war, whilst also tapping into their sympathetic side, encouraging the viewers to feel sorry for those affected by conflict. Also, if I was hypothetically analyzing, I would probably point out the limitations and biases as well. For instance, their lack of tangible evidence would is apparent, no statistics or facts were stated. All evidence used comes from anecdotes, so there's no real analysis or proof. As a bias group, VFP also fails to note any counterarguments advocating for war. An unbiased source would present counterclaims as well as rebuttals for said counterclaims, to create a stronger argument.

Now that I've talked about the VFP, it's time to move on to a polar opposite interest group, JINSA. This group's mission statement is as follows:

"The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) is dedicated to educating Congressional, military and civilian national security decision-makers on American defense and strategic interests, primarily in the Middle East, the cornerstone of which is a robust U.S.-Israeli security cooperation. JINSA believes that a strong American military and national security posture is the best guarantor of peace and the survival of our values and civilization."

To my understanding, this states that JINSA tells civilians, military and congress how America should act concerning the Middle East, saying that we need a strong military to maintain national security/peace. JINSA has recieved countless awards over the years, and continues operating to this day, giving reports relating to their field. As of writing this, the most recent article is a report on the U.S's current strategy towards Iran. Let's go analyze it!

Comprehensive U.S. Strategy Toward Iran After the JCPOA  

Main points:

1. The U.S needs a more clear and forceful policy in order to reduce the Iran threat
2. The U.S must utilize everything in both it and it's ally's powers: Diplomatic, Economic, Militaristic
3. Special Operations should be used in Syria and Iraq, limited overt pressure.

As stated before, JINSA and VFP are practically opposite from one another. While VFP wants less violence and war, JINSA states that we must apply more pressure in order to reduce the threat. Through their rational, they'll only get stronger over time unless we do something about it. This is explained primarily through an appeal of logos, or logic. While no specific stats or numbers were given, the statements were backed by explanations. Of course, this group is also quite biased. Similarly to before, they fail to note any limitations of their statements, and no actual statistics were given. Everything they wrote was merely conjecture, no evidence from past actions was given.

Alright, now that we I analyzed both interest groups, let's compare them! As stated twice already, the two groups are polar opposites to one another. While one wants to end violence, the other wishes to continue militaristic strategies. However, in the end, both want the same thing. To stop all war. However, their approaches are different. While the JINSA believes that Iran is a threat that must be stopped before it grows out of control, VFP believes that the approach is far to costly, as they have experienced the horrors of war. While VFP focuses more on pathos to convey their ideas, JINSA prefers to use more of a logos appeal. the artifacts I choose may have been of different mediums (one's a video, the other an article), but they still fell into the same flaws in bias/limitations. Both failed to recognize their own limitations, such as a lack of statistics or tangible evidence. Nevertheless, they still both passionately believe in the cause their fighting for, so I respect them for that.