Recently, US President Donald Trump held a summit with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. This summit was hailed as historic as it offered an opportunity for the two countries to pursue peace. It is still too early to determine if the summit will deliver the desired outcomes. However, what is clear is that thanks to the summit, the world has been spared a needless nuclear war. Despite the gains that have resulted from the summit, there are some who believe that the US should pursue a violent assault on North Korea with the goal of stripping it of its nuclear capabilities. Edward Luttwak (2018) is among these individuals. In his article, he makes a case for the US to attack North Korea. Overall, this article contains unsubstantiated rhetoric and fails to persuade.
Fairness and completeness are among the features of persuasive writing. If they wish to convince their readers to accept their arguments and perspective, writers need to provide insights into both sides of the argument. As they do this, they shield their writing against the damaging effects of bias and lack of balance. Reading Luttwak’s article, what becomes clear is that he does not recognize the value of balance and fairness. He fails to present the arguments that erode his argument in an accurate and fair fashion. The main argument that he makes is that to eliminate the nuclear threat that North Korea poses, the US should launch a bomb attack (Luttwak, 2018). Luttwak does not offer a complete critique of his proposal. For example, he fails to note that should the US bomb North Korea, hundreds of thousands of people will die. Essentially, Luttwak omits facts that defeat his argument. For this reason, his article can be dismissed as unconvincing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is true that completeness and fairness help to enhance the persuasive appeal of an article. However, on their own, these features are not sufficient to make an article compelling. They should be accompanied with concrete facts. In an apparent effort to gain support for his perspective, Luttwak presents some facts. For example, he mentions that South Korea is vulnerable because of the failure of its government to institute measures to safeguard against attacks by North Korea (Luttwak, 2018). While the facts help to support the case for bombing North Korea, they are mostly insufficient and some of them are conjectured. For instance, Luttwak posits that the US should attack North Korea’s most important infrastructure. He bases this recommendation on military strategy that ignores the complex dynamics of global security. By failing to frame his proposal and overall argument within the context of global security and international relations, Luttwak essentially condemns his article to ineffectiveness and strips it of any persuasive appeal.
In the discussion above, it has been noted that Luttwak fails to provide concrete facts to substantiate his claims. This failure hurts his argument. The argument is not helped by the fact that nearly the entire article is built on baseless predictions. For example, in dismissing the fears of those who are concerned about the outcomes of an American attack on North Korea, Luttwak asserts that China is unlikely to intervene to aid North Korea (Luttwak, 2018). It is clear that Luttwak is not fully briefed on the politics of war and foreign affairs. China is a close ally of North Korea. In fact, despite economic sanctions imposed on North Korea, China continues to supply North Korea with essential commodities. The alliance between these two countries shows that if the US attacks North Korea, it is almost certain that China will be drawn into the conflict. By supporting his argument using a concocted and weak claim, Luttwak essentially admits that his paper is built on a weak foundation and lacks persuasive power.
In conclusion, Luttwak’s article highlights the importance of using persuasive appeals when presenting an argument. In general, the article lacks concrete facts and is therefore unconvincing. Moreover, Luttwak constructs arguments that do not reflect the reality on the ground. Basically, his article is a shamelessly desperate effort to justify violent intervention. For global security and to maintain its position of influence, the US should continue to pursue peaceful solutions to its conflict with North Korea. Policymakers should ignore the proposal that Luttwak presents.
References
Luttwak, E. (2018). It’s time to bomb North Korea. Foreign Policy. Retrieved October 26, 2018 from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-korea/
