TOW #1: Hearing You Out, Nicholas D. Kristof

Ten years ago, in America, the country Syria was most likely unknown to many U.S. citizens. Back then, we heard a lot about were Iraq and Iran, maybe Afghanistan, but Syria was not yet the breaking news story that it is today. Until today, I did not really have the chance to educate myself about this topic. I just assumed that this disaster in Syria would not affect me, and that it would pass soon enough. Today though, I came across an editorial from the New York Times that interested me. Unlike most articles that just state opinions, this piece takes the opposing facts into consideration. The author of "Hearing You Out," Nicholas D. Kristof, rebuts common arguments that are against interference in Syria. When I first began hearing about the topic, I thought I was definitely anti-interference, because I believe that war should be used only as a last resort, and also because America's previous attempts in the Middle East have not worked out very well. It is clear that America's decision regarding the attack of Syria will be crucial in world relations. Kristof is obviously supporting the interference into Syria, and is trying to explain himself while also persuading others to agree with him, through the use of counterarguments. The author graduated from Harvard University, then moved on to study law at Oxford University. He has traveled all around the world, so it is clear that he has experienced many cultures and seen firsthand what life is like outside of America. Kristof has been writing for the New York Times for almost 30 years and has been awarded two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written countless pieces over his life, this just being one. One of the first lines of the piece, "since I’ve obviously offended many readers by supporting missile strikes on Syria if it doesn't give up chemical weapons, let me try to confront directly your objections," confirms that Kristof is writing to to those that were offended by his previous pieces, and therefore, those who are against missile strikes on Syria. To get this across, he utilizes a question-answer format. The author takes the complaints from readers and forms his whole article around them. For example, one of the questions was "So you want to reduce Syrian suffering by bombing Syrians? Seriously?" The thing that I especially loved about this editorial was that Kristof was very aware of both sides of the argument. He was not discounting any specific side's opinions, or saying the opposing statements were stupid. It was very clear that even though he had an opinion of his own, he was still being professional and cordial to those with other ideas. It also showed that he was willing to stand by his opinion, even if many did not agree. This article made me more aware of all the factors that affect this decision and made me more interested in the political aspect of the situation in Syria. It also forced me to rethink where I would stand if I were forced to make this choice. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-hearing-you-out.html?ref=todayspaper