Running head: KILLING MACHINES

Rhetorical Analysis Caleb Buntyn University of Texas at El Paso

KILLING MACHINES

The Rhetorical Analysis of The Killing Machines, How to think about drones, by Mark Bowden is an informative essay that tries to inform the public of many of the little known facts about the use of predator drones and the processes they go through. The author uses the processes of ethos, logos, and pathos to give a very definitive explanation of the drones. This article also carries a very specific type of audience members or readers. For the most part this article has a very political meaning that many of the readers will be those who are very involved in politics. Also due to the nature of the article many people may read this because it is an informative article based on the uses of the drones in the Middle East in which many people find as an important topic. The author opens this article primarily using pathos by the use of biblical quotes and emotional feelings of the people affected by the drones. The author explains that the use of drones is very unfair much like the use of a sling shot in the story of David and Goliath. He continues to state that the use of a sling shot in the story is a form of technological advancement that allows the holder of the technology to have an advantage over their enemies. This is in direct correlation with the unfairness that author feels the drone gives its users. He sees the drone this way because it allows a person possibly three thousand miles away to kill someone. The author also describes the feeling a man newly out of boot camp receives after he uses his control to not only save a group of marines lives but also the sorrowful feeling the man gets from taking the life of another person. The young man also tells of how using the machine from miles away to take life, he feels that he is a non-deserving advocate for the praise his superiors have given him

KILLING MACHINES

when he has only pressed buttons while others are risking their lives. The author states that if these emotions can grow through the pilot whom is miles away, then imagine the sorrowful feelings the people who are left to pick up possible loved ones body parts. Bowden decides to follow up the previous writings with logos. The author chooses to use logos so that he can input factual information to support his own text. He notes that since 2002 when the drones have been used as killing machines they have killed over three hundred people including civilians and the intended targets. Although many wish to call this drones flying robots, the Air Force wishes to call them remotely piloted aircraft. This has been disproven by the Oxford American dictionary as they define it as a remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile. The author also inputs the testimony of a retired Air Force major who worked the drones for over two thousand flight hours. The pilot states, The Reaper (drone) as a significantly better warfighting machine than the B-1 bomber in every measure. (Bowden, 2013) From this pilots perspective who has both flown bombers and the Reaper, believes that there are many key advantages to using them over conventional aircraft. A key advantage is mission time duration, in which without using a pilot a mission can go up to twenty hours, twice as long as a regular mission with the pilot. The author adds that along with the great usage you get out of the drone its optics are some of the most advanced in the world. They allow you to see every shape and definition of what you are about to destroy, and it also allows you to clearly see the aftermath of what your mission entailed. The only downfall to this, is many of the pilots are shaken by what they see, especially do to the fact that many of the times they monitor their targets in all aspects of life including those with their families.

KILLING MACHINES

The author begins to close his article with a heavy writing of ethos. Bowden uses this method to give the entire article a sense of credibility to be put upon the people in charge the weapons usages. These weapon systems although deadly, must receive approval from the government of the country they wish to fly them in. This is mainly caused by the fact that these aircraft reasonably easy to be shot down, and having approval allows them to do extensive monitoring of their targets. According to sources, The U.S. government retains a kill list made up mainly by al-Qaeda or Taliban figures. During the campaigning of the 2008 election by Obama, he made it clear he would use drones almost extensively to core al-Qaeda members. In 2009 there was a reported fifty-three known strikes, but in 2010 the number more than doubled with one hundred seventeen strikes. Although the number continued to grow many inside the program feared it was growing out of control. A scholar from Princeton University stated that although the drones had been successfully destroying al-Qaeda in Yemen the death toll of civilians had become so high the general public began to join the side against the U.S. On top of this, Michael Morrell, ex deputy chief of the CIA was among those against the processes of the drones. He argued that although the weapon system is affective he thought it allowed too many civilian casualties causing the local population to become angered against the U.S. Through these three strategies the author creates a very successful article that both allows the reader to connect with certain characteristics, but it also gives the public someone to point the finger at. The reader can conclude at the end of the article that although the weapon system or killing machine may be very affective there are as well many draw backs to using it. This could include public hatred and also raising the amount of civilian casualties, which no political figure wishes to have while trying to liberate a country.

KILLING MACHINES References

Bowden, M. (2013). The killing machines. How to think about drones, 1(1), 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/the-killing-machines-how-to-think-aboutdrones/309434/