Rhetorical Analysis Of What It Is Like To Go To War

In What It Is Like To Go To War, Karl Marlantes writes about a multitude of issues that war veterans have to deal with after coming back from war while using the rhetorical appeals of ethos and pathos to try and build common ground with his audience. Marlantes argues that loyalty difference when it is being used by civilians compared to warriors of war, even though he was drafted into the marines and did not join willingly. Loyalty is a universal concept that all people of any belief understand. The opening pages to “Loyalty” are not written in the viewpoint of Marlantes in the Vietnam War, but in the college figuring out where and what he was loyal to and how he viewed loyalty before the war. Marlantes’ heartache after leaving Meg behind to …show more content…
Therefore, by showing that he does have the experience and knowledge he is a credible source to the reader. Loyalty is an important characteristic to have and be able to show that one is reliable. As a reader, Marlantes actual loyalty as a total is questioned because he states he “couldn’t defend the war politically” (135) and was drafted into the war and argues why loyalty is important. All of the times that Marlantes wanted to disobey his superiors while being in a war he did not believe in he was aware that if he did betray their loyalty he would put his troops in danger. “For me, my loyalty was to the mystic/historic/ psychological protection called ‘the unit.’” (141). According to Marlantes, “When the basic psychology of the warrior- to feel oneself to be the protector of lives in one’s relevant unit- has been violated, as it was in our particular case that winter in the mountains along the Laotian border, the only way to get it right again, to get feeling lined up with one’s gut instincts, is for unit loyalty to shift” (150). As a warrior, Marlantes knows the true feeling as to how dangerous it is to have a lack of