Blissful thinking provides security in the minds of people; thus, contentment shadows the real world and the horrors that people overlook. Regardless of evidence, logic, or a planned course of action, people, specifically American citizens, allow their government to persuade them to have the mindset that their government has the right course of action in mind. As Plato, a classical Greek philosopher, deduces in his writing The Republic, people have their "legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads" (1378). American citizens have their legs and necks chained with chains constructed by their own ignorance towards the United States government and its rhetoric in times of war and peace, chains that allow American citizens to only see what the government wants them to see. Only by breaking these chains will the American people be able to witness the constant mistakes and manipulations that they had otherwise deemed impossible. The American government uses organizations, such as the CIA, to infiltrate media outlets and use reporters for their own gains. The American government uses its rhetoric to convey that their way is the only way; that intervention and war are the only ways to pursue peace and prosperity throughout the world. The American government uses its rhetoric to persuade its citizens to support questionable conflicts, such as the war in Iraq, to satisfy their own personal agendas. The American government has tapped into the messages of its own citizens in order to monitor and prevent terrorist plots without the consent of the American public. The American government uses its rhetoric to promote war while maintaining peace and ignorance within its own borders.

The ignorance American citizens have displayed towards their governments actions has allowed the American government to make questionable decisions while only showcasing the rewards of the operations, rather than their severe consequences. The American government can make such questionable decisions, such as the decision to invade Iraq, with the backing of American citizens through the government's use of the media to promote war and government policies. The government's ability to use the media is terrifying and the ability of the CIA to use reporters and the media is even more concerning. Carl Bernstein, a now retired investigative journalist and author for the Washington Post, revealed in his article "The CIA and the Media" that, in an effort to gather intelligence, more than 400 American journalists had "secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters" (Bernstein). Although these journalists reportedly were only used in other countries for intelligence gathering, the mere concept of the ability of the CIA to infiltrate news organizations and use reporters for their own personal gain is concerning.

The ability of large organizations to use their manipulation of the media to promote government agendas is also quite concerning. The Centre for Research on Globalization, a research and media organization, expressed in its article "War or No War on Syria: Conflict of Interest of 'Experts' who Commented in Favor of Military Intervention" that people such as Stephen Hadley, a former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, made a series of appearances on multiple news outlets arguing for military intervention. The problem though, as Global Research points out, was that Hadley's audiences' were "not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon" which conveniently is the company that manufactures the weapons that were "widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria" (Global Research). Hadley was not the only person to promote airstrikes in Syria, though. Twenty one other media commentators and seven think tanks debated Syrian airstrikes. The problem is that "[l]ike Hadley, these individuals and organizations have strong ties to defense contractors and other defense- and foreign policy-focused firms with a vested interest in the Syria debate" (Global Research). The ease with which the government can infiltrate news organizations, recruit reporters, and gather intelligence through the use of reporters both known and unknown is frightening since Americans cannot know the full extent which government agencies such as the CIA have gone to gather intelligence both foreign or domestic. The United States government does not have to stop with reporters and news organizations though in their use of the media for their own private agendas. Companies such as Raytheon can profit from interventions and war, so when one of their directors is placed as an advisor to the highest office in the United States, he can promote violence abroad, establishing a profit for companies such as Raytheon and thus leads to war with the backing of a United States politicians who wish to see their pockets filled by promoting war in far off lands. 

From Iraq to Syria, the conflicts that not only put our nation at risk, but the brave soldiers that fight battles in a land not their own, the people of America are too easily susceptible to the rhetoric of the government. James Pfiffner, a university professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, in his article "Did President Bush Mislead the Country in His Arguments for War with Iraq" examines the statements made by President Bush and his administration "first, about the implication that there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11; second, about Iraq's nuclear weapons capacity; and third, about Saddam's chemical and biological weapons and his ability to deliver them" (25). The links made by the Bush administration were skewed and had little evidence supporting the arguments they were making for war in Iraq. Pfiffner claims that President Bush linked Saddam and the Al-Qaeda hijackers together and "used the implied link to bolster support for war with Iraq in Congress before the authorizing resolution and more generally with the American public before and after the war" (26). Instead of promoting peace during a difficult time in United States history, President Bush decided to promote a war on terror. President George W. Bush "did encourage and further the mistaken public belief because it supported his policy goals" (28). 

The argument though is that despite all of the bad that came out of the war in Iraq, the government was just in its misleading the United States public in order to get rid of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Oliver Kamm, a lead writer and columnist for The Times, recounts in his article "We were right to invade Iraq" that "[w]e no longer have to bear one major risk: a psychopathic despot," referencing Saddam Hussein, "overcoming a porous sanctions regime, and using oil sales to pay for resumed WMD production" (Kamm). The United States government was able to overthrow a dangerous dictator, albeit through manipulation by United States president George W. Bush and his administration. The United States government used its rhetoric to promote war, however, only in an attempt to establish peace for the future of the United States by ridding the world of yet another dictator.

A narrow vision clouded the judgment of American citizens and politicians alike, resulting in a war fabricated on the basis of revenge and destruction of all who would bring harm to the United States of America. The United States government was able to use its rhetoric to harness this anger by continuously implying the links between Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and 9/11, furthering the support for war in Iraq. However, David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of the Foreign Policy Group, reveals in his TED talk "How fear drives American politics" that according to American intelligence services, "on September 11, 2001, there were 100 members of core Al-Qaeda" (Rothkopf). In fact "[t]here were just a few thousand terrorist" and "[t]hey posed an existential threat to no one" (Rothkopf). Regardless, the United States rushed into the Middle East, resulting in the spread of Al-Qaeda influence into multiple other terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, and instilled hate for a nation seeking revenge on a group of extremists by bombing the homes of innocent people caught in-between the terrorist organizations and the politics of the United States.

After a while though, the people of the United States realized their mistake in marching into Iraq and began to demand the recall of American troops out of the Middle East. President Barack Obama did end up withdrawing American troops from Iraq. The problem is, "we have a government that doesn't want to listen" (Rothkopf). Soon after withdrawing from Iraq, President Obama initiated a series of interventions throughout the Middle East from unseating Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi to supplying a coalition against rebels in Yemen to continuous airstrikes in Syria. Through fear, the American government is able use its rhetoric to convey a sense of urgency and promote its objectives overseas in an effort to destroy the terrorist organizations that would seek to destroy the United States. However, from invading Iraq and even now with the interventions in the Middle East, the United States government creates a hatred for the United States as more groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are able to recruit people from all over the world to support their mission in destroying the United States. To destroy the country that came in and destroyed their homes and families while leaving with cultural artifacts and tortured citizens.

The people that have the power to send the United States to war, no matter the evidence, are elected representatives of the American people. While the United States public is convinced to go to war through the rhetoric of their government, the United States public has witnessed the outcome to the policies and decisions voted on by the three houses of the United States government. The current politicians in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President himself, all have used their own personal rhetoric as they convince their respective states to elect them back into office. The American people have witnessed the agendas of these politicians and yet still remain optimistic to the likelihood that they will somehow clean up the messes they have made while in office. Robert Higgs, an American economics historian, in his article "Caging the Dogs of War" refers to the 2004 elections when "all but one (Tom Daschle) of the 26 incumbent senators who ran and all but 6 of the 402 incumbent representatives who ran succeeded" (302) in gaining reelection on the basis of continued war in Iraq. President George W. Bush was reelected to the presidency on the same grounds as the senators and representatives. In President Bush's 2004 campaign, "he made no apologies for the war; indeed, he sought to take credit for launching it and for waging it relentlessly" (302). In 2004, "[b]acking the war obviously proved to be entirely compatible with, if not absolutely essential to, these legislators' quest for continued tenure in office" (302). So even though the United States government uses its rhetoric to push for war overseas, the fault lies with the American people, for they are the ones who elect the incumbent warmongers back into office to continue from where they had stopped, continued war.

Although the United States was the main aggressor in the war in Iraq, America was not alone in the conflict or in the deception in leading its country to war. The entrance into Iraq by Great Britain was clouded with promises and hopes for a peaceful resolution through the United Nations that never came to fruition. Eric Herring and Piers Robinson, in their article "Deception and Britain's road to war in Iraq," depicts how there has been a "majority view among the British public that British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in concert with United States President George W. Bush, Jr, lied in various ways to pave the road to war" (Herring and Robinson 214). Through the use of small amounts of unsubstantial evidence, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with United States President George W. Bush, Jr., the two leaders of powerful nations, were able to persuade the citizens of their countries to go to war in search of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and their capabilities. Also, the alleged workings of peace through the United Nations and Britain's involvement and commitment to these peace talks were greatly exaggerated, leaving Herring and Robinson to share how, through their observations, "[o]thers have listed what they categorize as exaggerations and misreporting, showing the gap between what Blair said and what was true" (Herring and Robinson 214). These general surveys of the British people themselves offers an insight as to the realization of how the public was coerced into fighting an unsubstantiated war. Herring and Robinson also mention how "[o]rganized political persuasion refers to a deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions in order to gain support for a policy" (Herring and Robinson 217), defining the process that former Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with former United States President George W. Bush, Jr., convinced their countries to go to war. Together, they were able to fund, support, and initiate their own war, lying about their intentions and the evidence they actually had.

An argument to the use of government rhetoric to promote war is that if countries such as the United States and Great Britain do not intervene, it risks groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS attacking throughout the world with little to no suppression. As Elliot Abrams, a former American diplomat, lawyer and political scientist, states in his article "US foreign policy: Obama and beyond" that Obama's successor will have to continue fighting in the Middle East "because American security demands it  --  and so does American leadership" (10). In order to put a stop to the spread of terrorists groups such as ISIS into countries such as Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, the United States will have to "become more involved in organizing and leading efforts to stop it" (10). The United States government sees this and attempts to convince the public that to ensure security within the borders of the United States, war with groups such as ISIS and intervention in countries such as Syria is necessary in the stemming of terrorism in the world. As Geopolitical Weekly, a weekly article for Stratfor, a geopolitical study and news group, examines in its article "The U.S.-Iranian Negotiations: Beyond the Rhetoric" the talks of Iraq between the United States and Iran. In these talks in 2008, the United States was focused on these talks to ensure that "Iraq not become an Iranian satellite. If that were to happen and Iranian forces entered Iraq, the entire balance of power in the Arabian Peninsula would collapse," reducing American influence in the Middle East and destroying the hope of a "pro-American Iraqi government that could threaten Iran on its own" (Geopolitical Weekly). Although the United States government takes certain liberties to ensure public support for these conflicts, the United States government is only trying to protect its people from a significant danger overseas. Thus, the United States government uses its rhetoric to promote war in order to protect its citizens.

The United States government does not only use its rhetoric to promote war overseas, but also to maintain peace and ignorance within its own borders. Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and philosopher, examines how the United States government promotes ignorance within its own borders in his article "An Ignorant Public Is the Real Kind of Security Our Govt. Is After." Chomsky states how "[w]hen a government's act is exposed, the government reflexively pleads security" (Chomsky).  So when people such as Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, and Chelsea Manning reveal government actions such as the National Security Agency spying on American citizens, the entire operation falls apart and the people in power fall into trouble. The United States government feels that "[t]he public doesn't have the right to know because security is thus undermined" (Chomsky). The United States government uses its rhetoric to promote ignorance within its own borders while conducting illegal actions such as spying by the National Security Agency in order to keep the peace.

The United States government has used its rhetoric to instill a sense of fear, anxiety, and ignorance within its own country. From using the CIA in the media to using false evidence to gain support for war and violent interventions, America's government has cleverly been able to manipulate its own people to support the questionable decisions elected politicians make. The American people have to strive to find the discrepancies within the rhetoric that the politicians in Washington D.C. use. The discovery of these discrepancies are too late, found only after the damage has been done. As Plato stated in The Republic, around those that have their legs and arms shackled "there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets" (1378-1379). The citizens of America are the ones shackled and the puppeteers are the elected politicians that parade their puppets around, showing only what they want to show to those that have their legs and arms chained down by their own ignorance. America must resolve to break these chains and demolish the wall that the puppeteers in Washington use. Only then will American citizens be able to witness the real dealings behind government policies and decisions and restore their country to that of a peaceful and prosperous United States.

