This article was written by Abby Sewell. Sewell was a journalist in Molalla and in Barstow before attending Northwestern University. She worked at The L.A. Times for six years. In this particular article, she describes possible changes to the US’s ant-terrorism techniques that could come about under the Trump administration. It seems that Sewell approves of the current tactics and fears that the possible changes will create negative consequences. She seems to fear that the new tactics will be less effective, and perhaps even more costly, then Obama’s tactics. She argues this through statistics and anecdotes.
Sewell begins the article with an anecdote from Lebanon. She describes a park opening. Families gathered around a public area with inflatable slides and lines of kids waiting their turn. The park is funded by the United States. The ideology behind this is that people only join terrorist organizations when their lives have gone so south that it is the only viable option for them. The purpose of the park was to establish a sense of joy in the residents of Lebanon. Perhaps a secondary purpose was to make them like the United States, in order to stop them fighting it when they grow older. This is in stark contrast to propositions put forth by the Trump administration, which favors a straightforward military approach to the issue.
The article is effective, but could be more so. The anecdote does a good job establishing a pathos argument. It makes the reader appreciate what the Obama administration’s tactics have done for the people of Lebanon. It becomes even more effective when put alongside the statistic of how little is spent on these development programs. Where I think she missed her mark was in her failure to express how Obama’s tactics stopped terrorism at its source, whereas Trump’s tactics merely offer resistance.
http://www.latimes.com/world/global-development/la-fg-development-aid-terrorism-20170305-story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment