reply of post 1984


  • Respectfully agree or disagree to a post by connecting it to reality, and
  • Do this by sharing a news article and make a clear connection to the claim made by the original author.

classmate post:

The Bush Doctrine, Democratization, and Humanitarian Intervention by Andrew Fiala discusses the use of military force in pursuit of spreading democracy. Fiala uses the “just war” philosophy to critique the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine – examining different wars in history, such as World War II and the Iraq War, to analyze the use of military force as a means of international relations, in order to spread democracy. Lack of democracy is described as an idealistic form of human rights violation, which justifies the use of military force to ensure democracy is practiced. However, based on the outcome of recent wars, it seems although Democracy is not always the result, we are persuaded to believe that these war-torn countries are now better off. Fiala uses World War II as an example of false exaggeration of the outcomes of war, which in reality left the war-torn communities broken. Fiala states “Although neoconservatives can cite the post War success stories of Japan and Germany as examples of successful democratization, such an analysis must take into account the horrible destruction that was caused by this war… This historical judgment has been colored by an ideological tendency to ignore the excesses of the Second World War” (Fiala, 39). Painting this war in a way which made it seem as though there were few casualties of it was used as a tactic to justify the war.

We can see similarities to Fialas just war critique in book one of Orewells 1984, as Orwell touches on this facade of success and accomplishment in the face of a war torn, totalitarian community. Winston recalls a moment in the canteen when the telescreen begins to blast a message stating that “the battle for production” (Orwell, 58) was finally won, and that the standard of living has risen due to the great leadership of Big Brother. The telescreen goes on to list all of the accomplishments of the past year, “As compared, with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture… more everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards” (Orwell, 59). Winston is amazed that people are buying this information, as it is very obvious that the current state of the community does not mirror these statistics. Within the same thought, Winston recalls the actual state of the people, “How easy it was…if you did not look about you, to believe that the physical type set up by the Party as an ideal – tall muscular youths and deep bosomed maidens, blond haired, vital, sunburnt, carefree – existed and even predominated…So far as he could judge, the majority of the people in Airstrip One were small, dark, and ill favored” (Orwel, 60). Yet again, Winston touches on the reality of his world, and how it completely contrasts the imagined state based on statistics fed to him by proponents of Big Brother.

In comparing these two passages, a theme of imagined reality and actual reality are portrayed. Fialas neoconservatives are similar to proponents of Big Brother in that they are justifying their actions by over exaggerating the positive outcomes. They paint these destructive actions as morally obligatory, and as something that is for the betterment of all mankind. However, when we look at the reality of each situation – the tangible evidence – we can see that the state of reality is less than ideal. Big Brother makes use of false statistics and ultimate rule to keep its people in line, and in favor of the regime. Fiala uses examples of “just wars” to critique the popularity of the Bush Doctrine in justifying tragic actions, and discusses how painting the picture of ease and accomplishment can convince people that war is justifiable in the wake of ideological destruction. Both passages are working to exemplify the use of false (or misconstrued) statistics as a means of justifying war and control.