“the Hardest of the Hardcore”
8 July 2013 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
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
Cited: Fujitani, Dylan. “The Hardest of the Hardcore.” Trans. . The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. Ed. John Ramage, and John Bean. New York: Pearson Education, 2009. 538-543. Print.