Zyk 1
Abby Zyk
COL McDonald
ERH 202WX
12 September 2017
The Ethics of the U.S. Military: A Rhetorical Analysis
Entering the controversial conversation of ethical warfare, or more specifically, warfare in the United States being fueled by the rhetoricians that govern it, it is apparent that an argument holds no merit without proper backup. Hundreds of debates among scholars, military leaders, and government officials alike have long ensued in a verbal bloodbath resulting in little to no change regarding the use of rhetoric to fight our country’s ethical battles. If it should be increasingly difficult to persuade the civilian world to be content with brute military force against the will of the enemy at hand, why has no counter argument against warfare been successful? The answer lies in the art of strategic rhetoric.
Rhetoric has been used throughout the ages to communicate, persuade, and express language. Nowadays, rhetoric is used in political campaigns, persuasive speeches, academic or theoretical debates, and the like to craft a message according to the principles of rhetoric. Even though this art seems like a pretty modern concept, the language is far from new. Classically famous philosopher, Plato, displayed his exploration of the art that rhetoric has to offer through effective expression. Built on the principles of classic layout, the most comprehensive statement of Plato’s mature philosophical views appears in his work, The Republic, a discussion of the most fundamental principles for the conduct of human life, “Using the character “Socrates” as a fictional spokesman, Plato considers the nature and value of justice and the other virtues as they appear both in the structure of society as a whole and in the personality of an individual human being” (Kemerling, paragraph 1). This naturally leads to discussions of human nature, the achievement of knowledge, the distinction between appearance and reality, the components of an effective education, and the foundations of morality. In this analysis, I will be focusing on the parallels between his arguments of human nature, and the arguments of the present-day epitome of a morality crisis, the U.S. military.
In 2003, the U.S. Army published a leadership manual, Leadership, in order to discuss how military leaders can improve leadership and the overall success of the military through effective rhetorical skills. Leadership states that, “The complex nature of leadership requires leaders to develop a repertoire of message strategies that can be adapted to the unique qualities of different situations” (Barge 1994, 11). Approaching the ethical debate of warfare through the complex lense that is American culture, it is apparent that the United States has utilized the art of rhetorical discourse to support and defend the use of warfare in our world today. The invention, arrangement, and style of rhetorical discourse that the United States instills into our future military leaders has surpassed their competitors due to the speakers’ cultural awareness of American values and beliefs.
The parallels between Plato’s argument and the strategies of the military are best exemplified when taking into consideration the 3 compartments of culture that we split up when ensuing on such an ethical discussion. Plato splits up civilization into 3 distinct classes: rulers, soldiers, and the people. Plato maintained that if the proper functions were performed by its disparate classes, the work the society produced would be for the sake of common good. Thus, providing a ready account of the need to develop significant social qualities or virtues through rhetoric.
As defined by Plato, the first compartment of culture is the wisdom and the capacity to comprehend reality and to make impartial judgments about it” (Plato). Simply meaning that Plato values wisdom and knowledge as his most important traits when pertaining to a governing system. Justifiably, of course, by backing it up with the fact that you have to know the ins and outs of your craft in order to be successful. That’s obvious. But Plato takes it further to say that it is integral to the well-being of a functional society that its leadership has sound intelligence in their tool belts in order to make the correct judgements when they are needed most. In the Leadership manual, this argument is paralleled by the author’s discussion of leadership traits that make an effective military leader, “Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization. (HQDA 1999, 1-4). An effective military leader is an individual in the armed forces who produces the intended or expected result. (Random House Dictionary 1992, 426). Rhetorical strategy is a skillful use of language in speech or writing as a method for achieving a specific goal” (Random House Dictionary 1992, 1155 and 1321). The two arguments begin to unpack the role of communication as it equals success in the military’s agenda of persuasion.
Plato continues with his theory to state that the next compartment of culture is soldiers. In the military’s case, this concept is referring to the enlisted men and women of the military. Plato claims, “ Soldiers charged with the defense of the city against external and internal enemies, on the other hand, need the virtue of courage, the willingness to carry out their orders in the face of danger without regard for personal risk” (Plato). The key role of military leaders is to carry out the missions given to them by their chain of command. Following this logic, it is imperative that the leader establishes a relationship with his or her subordinates in order to communicate effectively. Half of this verbal and communicative battle rests on the shoulders of motivation. Officers have to be inspirational, motivating, and power-inducing. The Leadership manual adores this notion, “ The perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and power influences among the communication participants build to varying levels of message understanding, acceptance, and ownership. Dr. Lewis creates a practical guide for public speaking in his book, How to Get Your Message Across: A Practical Guide to Power Communication (1997). The focus of the book is fourfold: the winning power of words and the command of language; training and practice in becoming a good speaker; understanding the audience; and different message strategies for communicating to different audiences. Dr. Lewis devotes several pages to discussing the pyramid of perception that has the greatest impact upon subjective assessment, perceived understanding, and decision to accept a message” (Barge 1994, 9). There is proof that a mastery of rhetorical strategies and word choice does have a positive impact on developing leadership, shaping character, and fostering a motivation to act in a positive venue.
The last compartment of culture as defined by Plato and the Leadership manual is the people. The civilians of which the endeavors of warfare ethics arguably, most directly affect. Plato concludes, “ The rest of the people in the city must follow its leaders instead of pursuing their private interests, so they must exhibit the virtue of moderation, the subordination of personal desires to a higher purpose” (Plato). The civilian community has studied the issue of rhetoric longer and with more detailed analysis. In contrast, only limited material on effective oral communication exists within the military community. “The leader at the strategic level relies more on the power of communication as a skill and action. “Strategic leaders communicate not only to the organization but also to a large external audience that includes the political leadership, media, and the American people. To influence those audiences, strategic leaders seek to convey integrity and win trust. “As GA Marshall noted, they become expert in the art of persuasion” (Barge 1994, 20).
Military leaders should take Plato’s teachings into consideration in order to enhance their own arguments for a bigger and better quality military. By optimizing their language and choice of persuasion, the U.S. military can better serve our country by gaining prominence in the field of foreign policy and worldwide militia issues. At all three leadership levels defined by Plato, officers must possess the interpersonal skill of communicating and the conceptual skill of critical reasoning. At the organizational level, leaders must furthermore possess the ability to persuade as a means of communicating, as well as establishing clear intent within the conceptual skill requirements. As an action, leaders must communicate to influence.
Zyk 6
Works Cited
Hinck, MAJ John M. “The Military Leader and Effective Rhetorical Skills.” Www.dtic.mil, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 6 June 2003.
Hayden, Michael V. “Opinion | To Keep America Safe, Embrace Drone Warfare.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/drone-warfare-precise-effective-
Imperfect.html.
Maguire, Laura. “The Ethics of Drone Warfare.” Philosophy Talk, 9 Sept. 2015,
www.philosophytalk.org/blog/ethics-drone-warfare.
Oxford Union, director. Drones Are Not Ethical And Effective | Chris Cole | Oxford Union.
YouTube, 3 May 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkelju3eXYM&t=186s.