The major claim that Ephron and Childress make is partially stated in the title. They want the audience to believe that the United States is failing its war veterans because the VA is not providing immediate and necessary care for its wounded. By stating the claim in the title, they set the tone of the article. They try to make the VA seem incompetent and the wounded soldiers into proven heroes. The soldiers returning home from war deserve the best care and because of this hero status the VA and the government in general should not be making the process of filing a disability claim difficult. Indeed, they insist that one idea that could work is granting the veterans benefits right away, then later auditing the claims to make sure of the accuracy (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). This idea originally came from Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor and researcher from whom other ideas in this article are also taken. Bilmes herself states “…the existence of so many veterans, with such a high level of injuries, is yet another aspect of this war for which the Pentagon and the Administration failed to prepare, plan and budget” (Bilmes 2). The many ideas that are presented in Ephron and Childress’s article parallel the reports that Bilmes has been researching. Using Linda Bilmes as a source of information also builds credibility because they highlight Bilmes credentials to establish their own expertise on the subject.
Within their forum, using examples of personal stories to support their claim, Ephron and Childress strongly leaned toward pathos in their article by encouraging Americans to determine for themselves that veterans are not being treated right. They blatantly use an emotional example of a soldier crying out for help before ultimately committing suicide. This message was placed at the very beginning of the article to create outrage at the fact that one veteran tried over and over again to get help for his mental health condition without ever receiving the necessary care. The statement made by an unindentified VA representative explained that the VA does not treat any mental health concerns with the same urgency as they treat other concerns (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). That statement was yet another emotional appeal to the audience. Over half of the article refers to soldiers with mental health problems as their primary real-life examples. This statement makes the VA looks worse than it might have if the authors were only using examples of physical wounds sustained in combat.
The appeal to logos was created with the many statistics and facts that were littered throughout the article. An example of this was the statement that this is the first war fought with an all-voluntary military. They explain, “Already the war has made it harder for the military to recruit new soldiers and more expensive to retain the ones it has. If we fall down in the attention we provide [the soldiers and wounded veterans], who’s to say volunteers will continue coming forward?” (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). The point that they were trying to make was that if the military cannot find people to volunteer, the draft might need to be reinstated. Otherwise, there might not be enough people to continue military operations and we might not have “the greatest military in the world” which is how the military refers to itself at the present time.
One thing that gives this case such a strong emotional appeal are the warrants associated with the article. Although none of the three warrants are completely disclosed to the audience, each are partially stated rather than totally implied. This makes a stronger case to the audience as it helps to create a picture in the reader’s mind about how things should work. For example, one of the warrants implied was that the VA should instantly (or as soon as possible) upon return from deployment or discharge provide necessary and immediate care for its wounded veterans. The use of this warrant was shown in the very beginning when the story related to the young veteran with probable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and his trouble with not receiving prompt care from the VA even after he tried to self admit to an inpatient program. The warrant implies that if he had gotten the care that was necessary and due to him, he might not have hung himself and died needlessly. If he could survive the war, he should not have had so many problems with life after war without the help that was supposed to have been his without problem or question.
Another warrant implied in the piece was that disability claim filing should be easy and wounded veterans should begin receiving benefits immediately after filing those claims; no waiting time should ever happen. Again, this is brought up by one of the personal stories of a wounded veteran. This young man’s first application was lost by the VA and then it took over a year to start getting his disability checks. By that time, he was in school and his mother was forced to take a second job at McDonalds to help support him during that time. Ephron and Childress explain that “…for many returning servicemen burdened with wounds, it is, initially at least, their sole income” (Ephron http://www.msnbc.msn.com). That statement is an attempt to provide proof that the money is necessary for those disabled veterans and, thus, should be given to them as soon as possible.
A last warrant that was implicated throughout the article was the idea that the VA should be able to plan accurately for the future, no matter the circumstances, so that each wounded veteran has the care that is needed as soon as it is needed. Although the first two claims are repeated in this statement, it is necessary to point them out because each of these warrants are interconnected. In order to provide adequate care, the VA needs to be able to plan for the future, however, they seem to imply that planning for the future should be more akin to seeing the future somehow, and that, as we know, is not possible. The implausibility that they assume the VA could know so much and plan for it is like those who think that the President of the United States could know how this war would turn out. To plan for the possibilities of each situation is only possible to a certain extent; no one knows the future.
Although the article has a very strong warrant use, it was found lacking in the area of possible solutions for this problem. There is only one place that listed Linda Bilmes’ ideas, but by and large the solutions were absent from the argument, making it a claim of value. Ephron and Childress do not use their article as a tool to provide solutions, but as a place to generate emotion within the public and possibly stir a public outcry. Public outcry is a poor solution to a problem as it does not usually generate action, and it only raises the emotional awareness of the situation.
According to Ephron and Childress, we should value our wounded veterans and prove that value by caring for them in the best way available. Our Veteran’s Administration is the government agency that takes care of those wounded veterans coming home from deployment. The VA is not doing its part in preparing for the sheer numbers returning with physical and/or mental problems, and those in VA care are not being treated promptly. The soldiers are also left waiting for disability approval so they have some income to support themselves and, often times, a family as well, but are not receiving this in a timely manner. The American Government, as the title of the article indicates, is not doing its part to take care of its war veterans. The point, however, is clear; veterans are coming home are not being given the respect they deserve in the form of adequate mental and physical care directly upon return from the dangerous wars in which the United States is participating.
Works Cited
Bilmes, Linda. "Soldiers Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits." Faculty Research Working Papers Series RWP07-00101 Jan 2007 1-20. 1 Oct 2007
Ephron, Dan, Sarah Childress. "How the U.S. is Failing its War Veterans." Newsweek March 5, 20075 Mar, 2007 1 Oct, 2007
My thoughts:
I liked the article that I was reading and analyzing, so this paper was much easier to write than the last one, but I still started out with work to do. My first copy was sorely lacking in a strong conclusion. I stated many things that I did not explain very well or at all. For my second draft, I changed the conclusion so that it made more sense, but there were still some things that I left in that were not properly explained. I tried to put each part of the toulmin model in the paper, even if it was not used in the paper, but I abandoned that tactic for my third draft, instead making the points that were in the article stronger. I was supposed to edit more out to make the paper shorter. I did some editing, but it is still too long and I liked what I had for most of the paper so I was not sure what to take out. It just seems so much stronger together. I guess that is why professional writers have editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment