DeCastro 1

Ellen DeCastro
Yeaton
Pre-AP English 10H 6
8 February 2018

Citation
Nichols, John. “Congress Must End US Military Support for the Horrific Saudi Bombing of
Yemen.” The Nation, 28 Sept. 2017, www.thenation.com/article/congress-must-end-us-
military-support-for-the-horrific-saudi-bombing-of-yemen/.

Part 1: Article Analysis

John Nichols provides an overview of the conflict and Yemen and how the United States is
responding to the issue. Specifically, Nichols details the impoverished state that Yemen is in and
how the people are suffering from disease, famine, and war because of it. The U.S. support and
involvement in the war taking place is increasing the war’s longevity because it is fueling it with
supplies. The U.S. involvement is also not beneficial to its own country since it ruining the
United States’ reputation by supporting a brutal military campaign at the expense of the money
from American taxpayers.

Tone: In the beginning of the article, John Nichols’ tone can be interpreted as depairing. The
author uses words/phrases like: “poorest,” “most neglected,” and “largest humanitarian crises”
which convey that Yemen is at the very bottom of the scale with no anticipated improvement
approaching. The tone then switches to impartial, declarative in the middle where Nichols uses
neutral vocabulary as well as only stating changes over time and facts.

Context: Nichols includes a description of Yemen’s current state as well the most basic
information of the war, but in order for the reader to better understand the article he/she would
have to know that there ongoing internal conflict in Yemen and understand the complexity of the
United States’ role in the war.

Appeals: The author appeals to logic with statistics such as: “20.7 million people” and “73
percent” which he used in his description of Yemen’s population. He also appeals to pathos with
a question to keep them focused on the content as well as make a personal connection to the
reader and get him/her to reflect. Still, the main appeal by Nichols is to ethos when he cites many
well-known, powerful, tenable people/organizations as sources which boosts his credibility.

Strategies and Devices: A main strategy John Nichols uses is short, simple sentences which is
syntax. This sentence style is declarative and doesn’t offer room for the reader to be confused
and interpret the statement as anything other than what the author intended for it to mean.
 DeCastro 2

Organization: The article follows a topical pattern where the claim is the main group followed
by multiple pieces of evidence.

Diction/Word Choice: The article is easy to understand by its readers with simple/direct
vocabulary which follows the standard level of diction. This level of diction is written with a
professional tone and is intended for an audience who has average education, careful not to use
highly specialized words.

Part 2: Personal Response

The author begins the article by introducing where the action takes place which is Yemen,
introduced with a few sentences describing the country’s overall status. It is concluded by
providing the hypothetical outcome if the U.S. does withdraw from Yemen’s war. The author
introduces his thesis in the beginning with quotations of other sources who believe the same as
he which is that the U.S. should withdraw. The intended audience seems to be those who support
the U.S. involvement in the war since it provides so much evidence for his opinion, “UNICEF”
“Just Foreign Policy” “Congress” (Nichols), which makes his claim harder to dispute. Most of
this article is not based on John Nichols’ experiences but based more on facts. The author
assumes that the U.S. involvement is harming both parties involved “not brought stability…
turn[ed] a horrible circumstance into a nightmare” (Nichols), but the U.S. wouldn’t have gotten
involved with nothing to gain from it. So, why did the U.S. get involved and how are they
benefitting from it now? Yet, based solely on this article I agree that with the author that the U.S.
should withdraw because there doesn’t seem to be any gain on our part since the piece only
provides the cons of involvement.