Rhetorical Analysis Of We Are Losing The War Against Radical Islam

For a long time, the world has been experiencing a lot of situations that include violence and terrorist attacks. One of the most recent happened in Paris when 3 terrorists connected to ISI, which has relation with Al-Qaeda, attacked a newspaper and killed 12 people. Newt Gingrich wrote an article entitled “ We Are Losing the War Against Radical Islam”, which talks about radical Islam and their attacks against the U.S. Gingrich claims that the U.S is failing the mission of stopping Islamic terrorists, and if Congress does not take severe steps to change that situation, Radical Islam will win this War. He states three points to prove how Radical Islam has been approaching the U.S, and each point he exemplifies with previous Islamic attacks against the United States of America. This article is considered credible and convincing due to fact that it utilizes two convincing rhetorical elements, which are evidence
and author’s purpose.
The article is credible and convincing due to fact that the author uses solid and sufficient evidence to prove three points that he supports throughout the article, and each point is defended with previous logical and specific facts, as the Purdue OWL website, an authority on research for academia, stipulates (Weida and Stolley). Furthermore, the article uses other reliable sources, which were published in the same news article and written by credentialed authors in the same field as the author is, so the audience can verify the information (Weida and Stolley). For example, in his first claim, the author uses the World Trade Center attack as an example to support that the U.S intelligence agencies have been manipulating untruthful narratives contrary to analyze the real facts, and the author uses the article entitled “Why ISIS Will Attack America”, which was written by Tom Rogan who is a scholar Washington writer and published in The National Review, as a source supplement (Gingrich). Therefore, this evidence is credible and logical because the National is a reliable website and the author is an expert in political content. Moreover, the author gives more relevant evidence based on the same criteria, which are logical facts about what the author is trying to convince, and this evidence is from the same news website, which is The National Review that according to the Purdue OWL website, which is an academic and peer-reviewed sources, the National is a credible news website. Thus, The information becomes credible and sufficient to convince the audience (Weida and Stolley). The author uses this particular rhetorical element because he wants to convince a rigorous audience, the U.S Congress, and bringing logical and reliable facts are the best ways to achieve his purpose.
The author’s purpose is clearly stated in the article, which is to persuade a particular group, U.S congress. According to the Purdue OWL website, the article is credible when the author’s viewpoint or purpose is considered, and this point of view has to be specific and related to the thesis that the author supports throughout the article (Weida and Stolley). For example, in his thesis, the author says that the U.S “Congress needs to create strategies to defeat Radical Islam” (Gingrich), if not, Radical Islam is going to win the war (Gingrich). From this example, one can easily notice that the author’s purpose is to convince the U.S congress to look carefully in the way that it has been applying its strategies. Other pieces in the article in which the author infers his or her purpose is in the conclusion, when the author calls for an honest examination of the evidence about enemies and Islamic terrorism so the US can know how to defeat her enemy (Gingrich). This rhetorical element makes the article credible due to fact that the author has been supporting his purpose with reliable and sufficient evidence.
Although the author declares his purpose through the article, he or she does not provide the other side or point of view of the situation, and it seems that the author, who is republican and has a peculiar point about Radical Islam, is too biased.
Therefore, some people may say that the article is not as credible and convincing as it would be if the author pointed out the other side. Based on the Pursue OWL website, when the author does not give other side viewpoint, the author limits the audience, and the article loses some credibility (Weida and Stolley). However, since the author, Gingrich “was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999” (Gingrich, he is an expert in politics and seems to have a specific audience. For example, in the article, the author addresses several times to the U.S congress, and it seems to be his audience. So mentioning the other side of the situation is not too relevant because the author is not trying to reach the public audience. Instead, his audience is politicians so they will know the opposing side’s
view.
Conclusively, throughout the article, the author uses a lot of rhetorical elements that make the article credible and convincing. In addition to compelling evidence and author’s purpose, the author’s expertise is another rhetorical element that is crucial for this type of text (“Deciding Whether a…”). Since the type of text is a news article, and the content is about politics, using rhetorical elements becomes extremely important to convince the audience. Normally, an exigent or rigorous audience requires more rhetorical elements than a public audience that are more interested in getting information. Students should learn techniques how to use and identify as many rhetorical devices as possible when they are writing or looking for credible sources.