Liberty Bell

“Lethal Gaps in Protection,” informs readers of new body armor designs, while urging the readers to help these designs become available for those in the U.S. military. It is based on a New York Times story, where it was revealed that 80% of the Marines killed in Iraq from wounds in their upper torso might have survived if wearing the new body armor. “Lethal Gaps in Protection,” primarily targets the readers’ emotions – with enough factual statements to form a semblance of credibility.

It starts with a ‘secret Pentagon report’ revealing the news the editorial is based on. After capturing the attention of the readers, the problems with the current body armor are displayed. Or are they? The editorial never goes into detail over what the problems with the current body armor are. Instead, the story is used to point out problems with the Pentagon.

The author of “Lethal Gaps of Protection” seems to be more concerned about “Lethal Government Awareness.” While details regarding the body armor are few, the details against the government are many. It blames a government who refused the protection available since 2003. A nation which isn’t willing to spend any of its $441 billion defense budget on the extra protection. In case you were wondering, the government has known of the problem “since the war began, along with… ”

“Lethal Gaps of Protection” is so well-written in one sense, that you don’t notice how poor it really is. The emotional argument is effective. By using extensive, extreme adjectives, the readers’ focus is drawn to the ‘poor soldiers’ and ‘horrid government.’ But the factual argument is less satisfying. The stated case is extremely vague: “80% of the Marines killed in Iraq from wounds in their upper torso might have survived.” The ‘facts’ against the Pentagon are buttered up with adjectives, making it hard to tell fact from fiction. And anyone looking for plain facts has no reference to look them up in.

Please note I am not disregarding the safety of those in the military.