Introduction
The Article that is being taken up for Rhetoric Analysis is the one that appeared on page 669 of the August 2010 issue of the CQ Researcher. The Article is entitled “At Issue” written by Kenneth Anderson, who is Professor of Law at the Washington College, American University, which appears on page 669 of the said Magazine. In this article, Anderson justifies the use of unmanned drone airstrikes as part of the concerted efforts of NATO allies to seek out and destroy suspected Al-Quadi hideouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Thesis statement: Why surprise NATO airstrikes against suspected terrorist hideouts are necessary and justifiable?
The justifications offered by Anderson do not carry a ring of conviction nor do to impress its readers with real content value. Perhaps his arguments sound more like that of a military strategist or war officer, placating the reader on why such use of hi-tech warfare is necessary and justified against an unknown and unseen enemy. It does not offer both sides of the argument, as any critical piece of writing of this genre needs to provide. Nor has it be able to offer valid criticism towards an argument contrary to his own. For example, in this illustrative article, he has not provided a rationale answer as to whether these strikes are at the behest of a third country, who are themselves unable to engage formidable with a common enemy; or even more significantly, how could he justify engaging enemy in conflict away from battlegrounds, or wherein both armies were not in level fighting fields. Killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield and mortal combat are justifiable but not miles away from it, perhaps against a defenseless opponent. His justification rings on the lines of the time-tested cliché of ‘All’s fair in love and war, the only difference being that this is a proxy war fought between unequal opponents. Rhetorically speaking, Anderson definitely falls short in his argument about the aspect of “civilian collateral deaths” (Anderson, p.669). His counterargument about the risks to professional military fighters when compared to the risks to civilian lives borders on the abstruse, and the tone it carries is very much different from the placatory and indulgent tone found in other parts of this article.
In an debatory article of this genre, which perhaps the proprietary and rationale of military action is being argued, except for the legal stand which he takes, there is definitely lack of any plausible evidence supporting his contentions. It would indeed be egregious, if the Obama Administration carried out illegal air strikes- thus Anderson’s argument that these strikes have legal validity seems ludicrous and anti-rhetoric, seen in the context of waging an inexhonerable war of attrition on unknown, and perhaps unseen enemy lines.
In all fairness, rhetorically speaking, Anderson has raised several arguments for the use of targeted attacks during the course of this article. He argues that perhaps the very fact that it is targeted attacks justifies the use of such missiles against suspect Al Qaeda installations and outposts. While this may be true on a broader framework, Anderson has fallen short of offering a convincing and irrefutable argument as to how these attacks could minimise killing of innocent civilian population or even American or NATO soldiers on the ground. His account of a ‘humanitarian’ warfare aimed at minimum casualties also needs to offer solid evidence and even illustrations of the casualties during the mounting of such unmanned attacks on suspect terrorist installations.
Lack of statistical analysis
In terms of argument, Anderson also does not provide statistical details of such aerial warfare and its casualties. An article of this kind needs to provide justification in terms of the following:
- The total number of air strikes carried out by targeted Drone strikes and the estimated deaths of the enemy. Compared with deaths of civilians and members of the American armed forces
- This needs to be compared with the unsuccessful air strikes, which could not only have missed its targets but could have caused untold losses to civilian and non enemy properties – casualty losses and dollar value of losses of properties
- The author also needed to provide the success strike rate and a detailed account of why certain strikes were off target and a military assessment of such actions.
While Anderson’s account of air strikes to flush out enemy targets are indeed justifiable, an article of this genre need also report about the success or otherwise of such potent air strikes, especially in demilitarised zones. While the content Anderson‘s article does seem reasonable and well organised, it does not seem to have served its intended purpose of justifying NATO air attacks against ostensible Al Quada targets, separating it, as it were, from killing, maiming innocents or their homes and properties. Besides, his arguments would have been more forceful, had he included the casualties also sustained by ground Americans forces during such surprise aerial attacks. Only if these facts and figures are provided would it be possible to make any realistic assessment of what he terms as “legitimate self defence” (Anderson, p.669).
The concept of legitimate self defence cannot be taken unilaterally and on a holistic basis. It needs to be supported and underpinned with facts and realistic backgrounds. There needs to be irrefutable evidences that these enemy targets had not indeed caused casualties, nor could it be possible to kill civilians in the name of armed conflicts. Anderson needs to have been more well versed with the ground realties of warfare, especially in the rough, undulating and mostly impassable terrains in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are also the humanitarian concept the killing of enemies should not be at the slightest risks to the lives of innocent women and children and destruction of properties in the name of targeted drone attacks.
Conclusions
However, one never seems to get reconciled to the idea that mere legal propositions which Anderson repeats could be the basis for protracted and deadly attacks on humans, which could snuff out human lives within seconds, leaving a trail of death, destruction and damages (collateral?) on its wake. Laws seek to conform men to their value systems, but could never condone, ratify, or endorse large scale killings on a retrospective manner as perhaps Anderson has attempted to do through this article. The US could never wage a war that it cannot prove legal, nor could it give a legal bearing to all that goes on in the name of warfare, more particularly, unmanned, stratified and targeted drone attacks on possible hapless and innocent human targets.
Works Cited
Anderson, Kenneth. Myessay. Zip. Media Fire. 2010, p.660. Web.