Nicholas Kristof published this article in New York Times on Sept, 17. The article deals with President Obama’s military campaign in Syria against the Islamic State. Specifically, how things are going wrong with Obama’s strategies towards ISIS.
Kristof begins with clarification and adding a little bit of humor. He starts off with “A senior administration official, explained why Saudi Arabia would be a good partner in battling ISIS “Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria. Oh? Actually, Saudi Arabia and Syria have no border at all. Always be skeptical when the White House goes to war with a country that it misplaces on a map.” Here, he has his readers hooked. His column was opinionated on what he really thinks about this issue. Kristof made it very clear that he disagrees with it all. What really interested me was how Kristof wrote his column – he did not go over what ISIS is, since everyone around the globe knows what ISIS is, and what ISIS is all about. Kristof was very straightforward addressing his concerns. Kristof wrote a column that could grab a reader’s attention by only using his opinion and no use of facts. But, towards the end of his article it almost seemed like Kristof was trying to get his readers to agree with him by saying “But I’d be more reassured if the White House could at least locate its enemy on the map.’’ And when he uses “For now, we seem to be setting out on an uncertain mission.”
Elon on Deadline 