This question was generated by student Group D in Cold War Rhetoric, an undergraduate course in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh. The question was played for Karl Rove during his visit to a special meeting of the class on March 3, 2008.
In the students’ peer evaluation using a standardized rating rubric, Group D’s question received 16.88 total points (see breakdown of scores to the left). For generating the question receiving the second-highest point total, Group D won the chance to address Rove second. To read student reflections on the encounter, as well as commentary about the students’ follow-up questions and how Rove handled them, scroll down to comments.
4 Comments | 
81. March 5th, 2008 Gabe wrote:
Karl Rove took questions for an hour on March 3 during a private interview with an undergraduate class at the University of Pittsburgh. Students in Gordon Mitchell’s “Rhetoric of the Cold War” course prepared a series of questions ahead of time which were presented in video format to Mr. Rove, who then answered and took a follow up question from each group afterward. Mr. Rove’s response to the follow up question posed by Group D offered an important insight regarding potential security threats faced by the United States.
Initially, Mr. Rove was asked whether he thought the “rhetoric of the cold war” aptly framed the way the American public should understand the “war on terror.” Mr. Rove replied that he did, saying that the “war on terror” was likely to be similar in length, and that we faced an ideology that sought to forcibly impose itself across the globe. Osama-bin-laden’s stated goals of an Islamic caliphate in Baghdad and the destruction of Israel were cited by Mr. Rove as examples of the ideology to which he was referring.
Group D’s follow up question to Mr. Rove was whether or not he could envision a situation that paralleled the Cuban missile crisis in terms of an imminent threat to the American People. Maintaining that American lives were constantly, imminently threatened, Mr. Rove expressed shock that the United States had not been attacked again. Pointing out that the Cuban missile crisis had not been predicted, he referred to speculation on the issue of a similar threat as “what if games.” A compelling example of a threat to the United States, not including nuclear attack, was then elaborated on by Mr. Rove. Oil prices, and by extension the American/world economy, would suffer terrible damage Mr. Rove argued, if Iran were to gain control of oil fields in neighboring Iraq.
Answering the question without referring to a verifiable military threat leaves Mr. Rove’s response incomplete. Mr. Rove convincingly makes the case that America’s economy would be threatened by an Iran in control of Iraq’s oil reserves, though his implied definition of what constitutes a threat equivocates military threats with economic ones, leaving a dangerous rhetorical gap. Given that the widely established and accepted naming of a situation entitles that situation to appropriate responses in policy and action, distinguishing between threats to American lives and American financial interests seems necessary. Although the idea of an Iranian controlled oil market is nothing short of frightening, naming it a threat in the same context as the Cuban missile crisis leaves numerous loose ends. Forming foreign policy concerning military intervention becomes particularly complicated when terms such as “threat to American lives” have not been unequivocally defined. American policy concerning the use of military force necessarily depends on the definition of the particular situation that is being considered. Thus, defining what exactly a threat to American lives is becomes a key issue for any citizen concerned with the formation of foreign policy.
82. March 5th, 2008 Adam wrote:
When I came to the University of Pittsburgh, I was intrigued by the fact that I would have the opportunity to attend special events with famous and influential guest speakers. I was privileged to such an opportunity on Monday March 3, 2008 when Karl Rove visited our Cold War Rhetoric class in the William Pitt Union. If you have followed American and World politics at all in the past 20-plus years, you have come across events, policies, and actions that have had Karl Rove’s mark, whether obvious or not. When our time with Mr. Rove was complete, one thing was obvious: he is an extremely intelligent man who has had a tremendous impact in this country and knows how to answer tough questions.
My group (group D) had the pleasure of asking the second of six questions to Mr. Rove. Our question: In the 2000 Presidential election, you helped sell George W. Bush as a President who would get beyond the “old paradigm of Cold War politics.” In several speeches in 2004 and 2006, however, President Bush repeatedly compared the Cold War to the current War on Terror. Do you believe the Cold War is an apt analogy in which Americans should see the current War on Terror? During the question, we played a video from President Bush’s speech at Johns Hopkins University on April 10, 2008 in which Bush draws comparisons in The War on Terror to The Cold War. Rove’s response was, in a matter of words, anti-climactic. His answer was “yes”, and his response and explanation were fairly weak compared to some of the other interesting responses he gave to other questions.
Rove addressed the question by saying that The War on Terror is an apt comparison to the Cold War because it is going to be a long struggle in which America will be forced to utilize all of its power including militarily, economically, and politically to defeat. He went on to say that like the Cold War we are battling an ideology comparing terrorism to communism and that identifying countries in which terrorism could spread is important similar to the communist-friendly countries that existed.
We actively discussed both of these ideas throughout the semester, so I was not surprised to hear them in Rove’s answer. The War on Terror does appear to be a battle that we will face for a long time. However, the fighting that America is doing in the War on Terror is entirely different than the fighting we did in Cold War. The Cold War was a battle that consisted of political conflict by politicians, not on the battle field by soldiers. In the words on Hinds and Windt, it was a rhetorical war. The War on Terror on the other hand, has required the American public to deal with the loss of loved ones, and worry that the soldiers they know may never return. Everyday, we hear of another member of America’s armed services killed in action either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although the threat of an atomic bomb loomed in the minds of the American public during the Cold War, most were not confronted with the everyday occurrence and fear of death.
The ideologies of communism and terrorism hardly seem comparable except for the obvious fact that they are both ideologies that are not favorable to America. Both in the rhetoric of the cold war and the war on terror these ideologies are set up to be a battle between good and evil. When we were fighting communism, our enemy, for the most part, was clearly defined as the USSR. When we were victorious, journalists and then President Bush and Gorbachev could state that the conflict was over as more and more governments in east Europe collapsed. Our fight against terrorism however is not against a country, not against a sole dictator, but against an ideology in the hearts of many people all over the world. As of today, our war on terror seems to be against terrorists of Muslim religion but when can the War on Terror really be complete? We battled the Taliban in Afghanistan, we captured Saddam Hussein and yet the threat of terrorism still exists. The victory over terror seems only theoretically possible.
If I would have been in a conversation with Rove, I would have asked, is that it? Obviously, comparing the War on Terror to the Cold War is a strategic move. We have discussed in class that the average person remembers only a few things from the Cold War, the most important being that we won. We were able to defeat an enemy in a long sustained confrontation. Other than that, the War on Terror is a poor comparison to the Cold War, and Rove did not convince me any further of the alternative.
97. March 6th, 2008 Tiffany wrote:
After doing much research in preparation for Karl Rove’s visit on March 3, I am definitely glad that I have had the opportunity to participate. Not only did I learn more about why Rove is such a forceful public figure, but also that he is a very accomplished and effective speaker. Each of the six groups in the Cold War Rhetoric course was given the task of researching, taping, and editing their information.
Group D found that Rove played a key role in helping President George W. Bush win the 2000 election under the condition that he would pull away from the rhetoric of the Cold War, which often includes a good vs. evil reference in the language used. However, through our course work we noticed President Bush put to use the very type of rhetoric and action that he was supposedly against. We also noticed that to support the activities of the War on Terror, the president often draws a parallel during his speeches to events of the Cold War.
Our question to Rove asked why, if in the 2000 presidential election he helped sell George W. Bush as a president who would get beyond the old paradigm of Cold War politics, did President Bush, in many recent speeches, repeatedly compare the Cold War to the current War on Terror. (We then illustrated this point with an excerpt from President Bush speaking in April 2006 at John Hopkins University). We continued to ask if the rhetoric of the Cold War aptly frames the way the American public should understand the current War on Terror.
To this question, Rove’s answer was a mere “yes,” which from the information our group had gathered, was predictable. Rove did explain that the parallel being drawn is appropriate because like the Cold War, the War on Terror is an ideological struggle. He also said that similarly the War on Terror is not likely to be a brief engagement.
Rove drew a comparison between the two wars as struggles of communism and terrorism - the terrorists “have a desire to forcibly extend a way of life across the globe,” which is similar to thoughts surrounding communism during the Cold War. In addition, Rove mentioned that to fight the War on Terror requires the U.S. to extend all of its power - meaning political, military, diplomatic, and economic - just as in the Cold War.
Rove’s response, although reflective of his intelligence and knowledge, did not completely satisfy my curiosity. I want to know more about the reasoning behind drawing a parallel between the Cold War and the War on Terror. Is the parallel put in place to support hopes that America will win the War on Terror just as we did in the Cold War (which is one of the few things people tend to remember)?
Regardless, our follow-up question did provide some more interesting information. We asked if a parallel event to the Cuban Missile Crisis had occurred in the War on Terror and posed an imminent threat to America.
Rove responded in saying there is a constant imminent threat to American lives, and it was most shocking to him that America has not yet been attacked. He also said, “I can foresee something happening.” However, Rove did explain that during the years immediately preceding the Cuban Missile Crisis people did not anticipate anything happening. I think this was an attempt to counterbalance his comment about something drastic happening in the years to come during the War on Terror.
Rove did provide a scenario of what could be considered a parallel event. He mentioned that prematurely withdrawing troops could lead to an expansion of Iranian Shiite or Sunni extremist influences in the Middle East. Moreover, that Iranian Shiite influence could place control over oil reserves in the country and drastically affect prices. He said, “they could decide to make it $200 per barrel,” which would heavily impair world operations. In the Sunni extremist example, Rove again referenced world oil prices, saying that expansion and influence from this group could destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Given the two scenarios, my thoughts then turned to why our country is not working more diligently to find alternate, efficient sources of fuel - a question I would have liked to ask, but during a more appropriate time.
While I am glad to have used my knowledge from the course during the research phase of this project, I regret to say that the information I thought to be new and interesting from the question/answer session was limited. The examples of what Rove views as an imminent threat to America and the fact that he will, seemingly, not be surprised if something drastic should happen during the coming years perhaps provide insight into the near future.
104. March 6th, 2008 sarah wrote:
Our group asked Karl Rove the following question: “Mr. Rove, you helped sell George W. Bush as a President who would get beyond the old paradigm of Cold War politics. However, in many recent speeches, President Bush repeatedly compared the Cold War to the current War on Terror. Do you believe the rhetoric of the Cold War aptly frames the way the American public should understand the War on Terror?”
“Yes,” Rove answered, “it’s a long struggle” and the war on terror “is not likely to last a brief period of time.” This was pretty close to the answer we expected him to give, echoing speeches we had in mind when we came up with the question. Rove continued to explain similarities by saying that in the war on terror we face an ideology where the people we are fighting “have a desire to forcibly extend a way of life across the globe.” One such person is Osama bin Laden, whose book Messages to the World Rove recommended we read. To that end, Rove listed Osama’s “four concrete goals” of extending his ideology around the world, which include establishing an Islamic caliphate in Baghdad (imagine the Taliban, he said); an extension of Islam in the 9th and 10th centuries that would span from Spain to Indonesia; the expulsion of crusader states in the Middle East; and the destruction of Israel by any and all means necessary. Furthermore, Rove said that “we faced an aggressive ideology” in the Soviet Union and similarly, the current war on terror “requires utility of all U.S. power,” including political, economic, diplomatic, and military. It also requires us to “make clear identification of moderate Muslims” around the world, like Indonesia, he said. Rove cited friendly communist countries around the world during the Cold War as a parallel.
Our follow-up essentially asked Rove if he could cite any imminent threat similar to that of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and if not, did he foresee something similar happening in the war on terror. Rove’s answer was somewhat predictable and hard to take as anything other than politically motivated. He said there is a “constant imminent threat to American lives” and it is the “most shocking thing” to him that we have not been attacked since 9/11. “I can foresee something happening,” Rove said, because in the years leading up to the Cuban missile crisis in the 1950s and even the 1960s, people didn’t see or predict what happened. Despite calling our follow-up question playing “what if games,” Rove proceeded to do just that. For example, if America was to “prematurely withdraw from Iraq,” we could see the extension of an Iranian Shiite influence or a Sunni extremist influence. In the first case, the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world in Iraq coupled with Iranian oil reserves, could prompt those in charge to make oil $200 per barrel and withhold it from the rest of the world, for example. In the Sunni extremist case, they could destabilize Saudi Arabia and affect world oil prices.
Some of what Rove said was compelling. I fully agree that, provided our current diplomatic stance toward Iran remains, if we withdraw from Iraq an Iranian Shiite influence will extend over Iraq, and indeed throughout the Middle East. However, Rove did not address a key part of our question. The goal of the Cold War was containment of communism. America was competing with its fellow world superpower, the Soviet Union, in terms of ideology, communism vs. capitalism. There were arms races, espionage, and rhetoric directed toward each other and our respective proxies around the world, but there was no direct military involvement. My interest in asking this question was the idea that rhetorically, the “war on terror” cannot be won. Terrorism is not like communism, as a rhetorical comparison of the Cold War to the war on terror would suggest, because terrorism is not an ideology. It is a tactic. How can you declare war on a tactic? Rove did not mention, to my surprise, an ideology that could be considered responsible for terrorism today – Islamic fundamentalism. But to compare these two wars is to suggest that Islamic fundamentalism is on the same level as capitalism and that they can compete in any real way.
So what are the real consequences for America of framing the war on terror in terms of the Cold War? This is what we sought to have answered. Our point, which Rove barely alluded to, is that by framing the war on terror in Cold War terms, calling it a long struggle and saying an attack against America is imminent, our leaders are conditioning the American people to withstand certain government policies and actions we might otherwise not. If we think we are fighting an ideology and not a tactic harbored by a small minority of people in countries around the world, than we won’t be calling for a quick withdrawal from a country deemed our enemy, nor would we object to necessary wars along the way, perhaps like those wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, necessitated by their risk of falling under communist rule.