SpruceTree said:
GO,
I don't have time to go into detail, but I'll say one or two things. .
"The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. " This is an awkward statement. Reword..
"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"." WATCH OUT FOR RUN_ON SENTENCES- you can break this up and make it easier to read.
"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."
I find when writing introductions that clarity is everything. In your intro simply write, "This paper will discuss/argue/posit/propose/portray/pontificate/demonstrate/perambulate/alliterate/attempt to prove/convince the....." or if your prof lets you, " I will argue that the.....can be best understood by....." Tell the reader exactly what your thesis is in the clearest language. Be wary of excess wordiness.
"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"."
I don't think this is a run-on sentence; just that the wording/commas should be changed thusly:
"Political reasons for the lack of participation are, by their nature, the most subjective and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are less subjective, more easily quantifiable, and equally as easy to conceal, especially when done so under the auspices of "national security". "
This one is just awkward:
"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."
Clearer this way, methinks:
"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, regardless of non-participation, is a valid inquiry and one that must be explored. The necessity for inquiry is compounded when consideration is given to the fact that such support would have produced substantial benefits. "