conflict & communication online, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2009
ISSN 1618-0747




Stephan Sielschott
The discourse on the participation of Great Britain in the Iraq War: An argumentation analysis of reportage in the British daily paper The Guardian

The author argues that in the run-up to British participation in the Iraq War, the Guardian slightly privileged war-critical arguments as compared to war-supporting arguments. It was probably helpful to the British government that the Guardian characterized the Iraqi regime mainly as problematic and dangerous. However, the government's arguments did not win recognition in any other argumentation area. The impression dominated that war would result in casualties and costs, that it would be based on illegitimate goals and that it would be counter-productive in reaching legitimate goals. Moreover, the domestic decision-making process was evaluated as undemocratic, and the commitment to military power was judged as violating international law. The question of a possible post-war order was only marginally discussed.


  full text in German  
On the author:
Dipl.-Soz. / M.P.S. Stephan Sielschott studied sociology at the University of Bielefeld, as well as Peace and Security Studies at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg. Since February 2008, he has been working on a doctorate as a scholarship holder in the DFG-graduate program: "Group-related Hostility to Other People" at Philipps University in Marburg on the topic: "The media reproduction of a group-related ideology of inequality." In addition, he is an assistant to the Chair for Peace and Conflict Research at the Marburg Center for Conflict Research. His specialties are media and publicity sociology, the sociology of social movements, as well as peace research and international policy.

Address: DFG-Graduiertenkolleg "Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit", Philipps-Universität Marburg, Bunsenstraße 3, 35037 Marburg (Germany).