Rhetorical analysis “The Hardest of the Hardcore”

It is believed that the United States allocates approximately 316 billion dollars a year on these groups. Distant from securing companies, they also provide security for the police, and government officials. Most of them are ex-special forces, and veterans. Some are ex-cons. Some people refer to them as mercenaries, and some people call them builders. Others would describe the mission as training other soldiers. They are used all around the world, providing different services in support of the United States Military.

What is their role? Student, Dylan Fujitani in his research policy argument, “The hardest of the hardcore” writes an article suggesting the removal of private contractors from the Middle East. It suggests that there is a common misconception that people are confused between the difference of civilian contractors, mercenaries, people in the military, and that civilian contractors should not adopt a military role. He adopts a serious tone in order to clutch the attention of his audience.

There are a lot of misconceptions to what some may believe the key objectives of the support staff/private contractors/ mercenaries are in the Middle East, and Congress must swiftly act to level the playing field between US military personnel and private security contractors. Most of the writer’s points in the essay seem relevant, and consistent with my past experiences in dealing with private contractors. I agree that there is a common misconception about the role of the private contractor/mercenary. Historically, the mercenary is a soldier for hire, however, the private contractor also has different dignitary support roles.

Fujitani successfully uses pathos in his essay to persuade his audience particularly when he suggests that the use of mercenaries circumvents public, and congressional scrutiny of some aspects of war (Fujitani 374). The writer’s purpose here is trying to persuade people, by giving an emotional appeal that civilian contractors (who have questionable prior backgrounds) are armed, are given essentially given legal immunity. Another example of Fujitani using pathos is when he said that placing more contractors in the theater of war is a good way to keep US troops numbers down, but politically it’s more expensive.

Here he is suggesting that the United States is trying to mask the severity of war. Even though he provided examples from both sides of the case, he’s extremely ineffective in this area because it seems he was not concerned with presenting the counterargument fair-mindedly. Although the writer uses pathos in this particular section part of his essay, most of this paper is logos heavy. These styles of comparison help the writer convey to his audience a sense of importance by using the language that is quite familiar to the military.

He indeed uses language that was easy for military, and nonmilitary personnel to understand. The writer seems very prejudiced, however, uses citations to support his opinion. I agree with the writer on the information that was presented, and how he was able to break down the concepts. I understand what he proposes when he references the role of civilian mercenaries. The writer was able to convince readers that his opinion was truly legit using ethos by referencing several published articles from credible sources. The reference New York Times article also gives good examples to support his reasoning.

In contrast to what the writer believes, I believe that there is a position that supports the private contracting business overseas. The writer clearly overlooks some important points that should be noted on the contrary. In my experience, I believe civilian contractors provide essential support services to the United States military. It is imperative that the military should not waste valuable resources, and manpower on support positions. To the contrary of what most people think, war is not always shooting at people, capturing prisoners, and kicking down doors 24 hours a day. A lot of essential jobs are in support.

The use of private contractors help with convoys, logistics, and food services help free up essential manpower for the military to concentrate on high mission profile assignments. In conclusion, the writer’s essay was ineffective because I believe that his essay appeals to one type of audience. The writer seems to not have any knowledge of how wartime operations are drawn out and conducted. Although not perfect, I believe that the use of private contractors are essential and should not be completely weeded out the process. On the contrary, he was effective because I think he used mostly logos to appeal to his audience.

He references essentially six principles on why private contractors/mercenaries should be extremely downscaled. He starts off by reference in how mercenaries disguised the true cost of war. Here he explains how civilian contractors actually disguise the number of deployed troops. He goes on and references how civilian contractors have no loyalties, and ultimately answer only to their employers and not the military. He again uses logos by citing a report on how mercenaries assigned in Saudi Arabia left their post indefinitely, because they were not comfortable.

Fujanti then moves to tie the two points together making a clear contrast on how the US military, and civilian mercenaries are accountable to the Geneva Convention. He describes how civilian mercenaries have no accountability to the law to whereas the US military does. The mercenaries are considered “noncombatants” and therefore it is difficult for them to fall within the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The writer closes his argument by expressing how private contractors frequently hire employees with questionable backgrounds.

He appeals to his audience by citing an article from the New York Times how 1500 S. African mercenaries are now in the Iraqi area. He expresses that many of the people that are participating admitted to being former apartheid mercenaries. Fujanti is clearly frustrated knowing that these kinds of practices are frequently carried, nothings done about it, and moves to propose his solution by conveying that the problems that were discussed earlier needs to be addressed by Congress swiftly, and immediately to protect the legitimate uses of war from market forces, lawlessness, and the abuse of power.