Introduction: “I Was on the National Security Council”
In his article, “I Was on the National Security Council,” former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael G. Mullen, criticizes a fundamental weakness in the Trump White House. He suggests that the presidential decision to exclude military and intelligence heads from the National Security Council (NSC) while including Mr. Stephen Bannon, his political advisor, in the decision-making process could be disastrous for national security policy. Mullen addresses policymakers, lawmakers, and other stakeholders, advocating for an increased role of relevant institutional heads and a check on the politicization of the NSC.
The main argument presented is that Mr. Bannon is not a legitimate person to sit on the principal committee and is not the right person for a vote. The contention is that Bannon is causing political instability by making decisions on Trump’s behalf or influencing Trump to make decisions not in the best interests of the country. Mullen asserts that the personal choices and opinions of Mr. Bannon are not relevant to the NSC scenario.
To enhance the effectiveness of his argument, Mike Mullen employs rhetorical devices such as kairos, ethos, logos, and pathos, along with appropriate diction and the comparison and contrast technique.
Argument in “I Was on the National Security Council”
The effectiveness of the argument can be assessed by considering the timing of the article. Given that the Trump White House is currently in the process of formulating policies for the new administration, the advice presented in the article is not only timely but also directly relevant to the current situation. This demonstrates a skillful use of kairos, as the recommendations align with the ongoing policy decisions.
Moreover, the author, Michael G. Mullen, holds a unique position to provide advice on National Security Council (NSC) issues, having worked in previous administrations in a similar capacity. His experience lends credibility to his argument, particularly in emphasizing the importance of keeping policy matters separate from political advisors. According to Mullen’s argument, the current moment is opportune for the new administration to involve relevant experts in the decision-making process, and the sooner this is implemented, the better. Mike G. Mullen’s strong ethos further enhances the credibility of his advice to the president on NSC matters. His background and experience contribute to his authority on the subject, making his recommendations more compelling and trustworthy.
Ethos in “I Was on the National Security Council”
Indeed, Mike Mullen’s ethos, or credibility as an author, is robust and multifaceted. His strength in ethos is not only derived from his relevant and credible background but also from his own explicit assertions within the article. Mullen’s professional history includes serving as the Chief of the Joint Staff Committee and being a member of the National Security Council (NSC) during the Bush Administration. In the article, he explicitly states, “I served from 2007 through 2009 as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” and highlights his experience working under the Obama Administration (Mullen).
Furthermore, Mullen’s experience extends to working in principal committees in both administrations. This background lends weight to his analysis of the current geopolitical situation involving Russia, China, and the Middle East. His observations on professionalism within the NSC gain credibility through his firsthand experience. Mullen strengthens his argument by drawing comparisons between the current administration and both the outgoing one and the previous Bush Administration. However, the effectiveness of Mullen’s argument isn’t solely reliant on ethos; logic is also a crucial element supporting his claims. The articulation of his opinions is backed by a logical foundation, and this logical reasoning enhances the overall strength of his argument.
Logos and Pathos in “I Was on the National Security Council”
Absolutely, Mike Mullen’s argument is fortified by his adept use of logos, or logical reasoning. He strategically employs historical references to underscore the significance of the National Security Council (NSC) from its establishment in 1947 until the present day. By delving into the historical context, Mullen builds a logical foundation for his argument, emphasizing the enduring importance of the NSC in shaping the country’s future strategic positioning.
Furthermore, Mullen employs logical reasoning to convey the potential impact of decisions made by the current administration, particularly those involving Stephen Bannon’s presence in the NSC. He contends that such decisions could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s economic and political conditions. Mullen doesn’t solely focus on Bannon but broadens the scope to address various issues that require professional handling.
One notable logical support comes from his reference to historical precedents set by the Bush and Obama Administrations. Mullen emphasizes the long-standing tradition of giving a leading role to the armed forces and the intelligence community in the principal committees. He strengthens his argument by drawing attention to the fact that political advisors like David Axelrod in the Obama administration did not have a voting or engaging role in discussions.
However, Mullen doesn’t rely solely on logos; he also incorporates pathos, or emotional appeal, to augment the impact of his argument. The mention of David Axelrod’s limited role serves as an emotional appeal by highlighting a precedent where political advisors did not have a significant influence in NSC discussions, contributing to the effectiveness of his overall argument.
Rhetorical Devices in “I Was on the National Security Council”
Indeed, individuals in positions like Mullen’s often need to maintain a certain level of restraint in expressing emotions, and the use of pathos is typically more implicit. Mullen strategically incorporates emotional appeal by implicitly suggesting that President Trump’s approach to the National Security Council (NSC) undermines the expertise of professional security experts. This subtle implication serves as a powerful emotional cue, as it implies a potential threat to the security of the United States and its citizens. Mullen’s indirect criticism of Stephen Bannon, stating that Bannon’s positions are “worrisome enough” and that his attendance in NSC meetings “threaten[s] to politicize” the decision-making process, is a poignant appeal to the audience’s concern for the safety and security of the nation. By linking Bannon’s actions to potential politicization of NSC decisions, Mullen taps into the audience’s emotions regarding the importance of a non-political, security-focused approach. In essence, Mullen’s use of pathos, though subtle, strikes at the core of the audience’s values by highlighting the potential risks posed to the security and safety of the American public and the republic. It’s a nuanced but effective way of conveying the emotional weight of his argument.
Regarding other rhetorical strategies, the author has employed appropriate diction that befits a national security expert, providing candid and effective advice to the current White House administration regarding the conduct and management of the National Security Council (NSC). The statement, “The Trump White House insists that the new organizational structure does not downgrade the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the directorate of national intelligence,” exemplifies the perfect use of relevant jargon that the author, Mullen, is an expert in (Mullen).
Given that this type of diction necessitates a formal and serious tone, the article maintains this tone effectively. The gravity of the discourse is conveyed through the use of specific words related to national security, such as “threaten,” “worrisome,” and “responsibility.” It’s conceivable that such a tone may be considered offensive to Mr. Bannon but persuasive for Trump. This is because Mullen is attempting to convince Trump that if structural changes are to be made, a close examination of policies is imperative.
Alongside this technique, Mullen adeptly employs comparison and contrast. He effectively compares the outgoing administration and the previous Bush Administration to persuade his readers that both have adhered to a long-established tradition of prioritizing professional security experts in the NSC, where political considerations are not required. This use of the comparison and contrast technique, particularly in evaluating the previous organizations of the NSC and the roles of services chiefs, fortifies his argument, making it effective and robust.
Conclusion: “I Was on the National Security Council”
In short, the analysis of Mullen’s argument regarding organizational pitfalls and the inclusion of Stephen Bannon in the National Security Council (NSC) reveals its strength in leveraging kairos, ethos, logos, and a subtle use of pathos. The timing of Mullen’s advice is well-suited, making effective use of kairos as the Trump White House is in the process of making significant organizational decisions. Mullen’s personal expertise, having served in the NSC in a similar position that Trump is restructuring, enhances the strength of his argument, constituting a persuasive appeal to ethos. Furthermore, Mullen effectively employs logos by providing a historical perspective, referencing previous administrations, and offering examples to logically support his contention. The implicit use of pathos is discernible as the author expresses concern about the security of the country, subtly appealing to the emotions of the audience. To enhance the overall effectiveness of his argument, Mullen employs appropriate diction that aligns with his role as a national security expert. Additionally, his use of the comparison and contrast technique adds clarity and cogency to his points, demonstrating the importance of appointing experts to relevant positions for informed policy decisions. Collectively, these rhetorical strategies contribute to the persuasiveness and strength of Mullen’s argument.
Works Cited: “I Was on the National Security Council”
- Mullen, Michael G. “I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.” The New York Times, The New York Time. 6 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2022.
Relevant Questions: “I Was on the National Security Council”
- Identifying Rhetorical Devices in “I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.” by Michael G. Mullen:
- What specific rhetorical devices does Michael G. Mullen employ in his article to convey his argument and perspective on Steve Bannon’s presence on the National Security Council? Provide examples and analyze how these devices contribute to the overall effectiveness of his message.
- Audience Awareness and Appeal in “I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.” by Michael G. Mullen:
- How does Mullen demonstrate awareness of his target audience in the article, and what strategies does he use to appeal to them? Analyze the language, tone, and examples he employs to connect with his readers and build credibility. Consider how the rhetorical choices align with the likely values and beliefs of the intended audience.
- Effectiveness of Persuasion in “I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.” by Michael G. Mullen:
- Evaluate the overall effectiveness of Mullen’s persuasive techniques in convincing the reader of his viewpoint. Consider the strength of his appeals to logic, emotion, and ethics. Explore whether he effectively counters potential opposing arguments and builds a compelling case for why Steve Bannon doesn’t belong on the National Security Council.
