1

Running Head: UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Unit Four Article Critique:

Examining “Understanding the American Way of War: The Planner’s Dilemma”

by US Military Officer XYZ

Tyler Jackson

Park University
2
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Abstract

This critique looks at the article written by US Military Officer XYZ entitled,

“Understanding the American Way of War: The Planner’s Dilemma.” Four themes of analysis

will be used in assessing the academic quality of this article. First is the quality of the author’s

analysis, of which the elements comprised are authenticity, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and

coverage. Second is the quality of writing. Third, the quality of the sources used, and finally, the

author’s use of citations and reference section.

Quality of Analysis

Authenticity

The authenticity of the author writing within genre, as well as the audience that the author

is attempting to reach, are two important factors when determining authenticity.

The genre was found to be authentic as it would be a concern for the author and directly

relates to his or her career field. Officer XYZ originally cites Russell F. Weigley’s book, The

American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy, to support his

claim that America has a unique way of conducting war. This enables the author to problematize

the concept of an American style of conducting war. As such, the author makes a credible call

for other military officers to gain awareness of said style, in order to become an effective

planner. Officer XYZ (n.d.) states, “By understanding the background of the preferred actions

[of the American way of war], a planner is better aware of the political predilection and [is] able

to articulate alternative strategies” (XYZ, n.d).

Additionally, the audience for this article was found to be authentic, as it would be

considered valuable knowledge for other military officers to possess if they are to effectively
3
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

plan. The audience is, however, limited in scope to other professional warriors with domain

competencies in military operations. In this case, the author uses inclusive language and jargon

that is unique to this topic. Purdue Owl’s (2019) section on group jargon suggests that the

audience is to be taken into account when considering the use of inclusive language unique to the

group. This limits the scope of the audience to those military leaders who would influence or be

influenced by military planning.

Accuracy

In several areas, the author struggles with both grammar and vocabulary. The author uses

strong language throughout the article, and at some points uses degrees of vocabulary that

contradict, as well as grammatical errors. For example, the author states, “What is not debatable

is historically it appears Americans do not place great emphasis on understanding the enemy”

(XYZ, n.d., p. 3). The author states that this concept is “not debatable,” but then hedges the

statement with “it appears,” lowering its degree after it raised it to an absolute. The lack of

precision as a trend is consistent throughout the article.

Objectivity

The article has major sections that are not cited and are potential opinion. It is hard to

decide what opinion is and what could be fact because the citations are sparse and many of the

salient points are not backed with external support. Many of the supporting facts look as if they

are opinion based, even if not explicitly stated as such. The author does not address alternative

explanations for their argument, which lends to the one-sided nature of the article.

It is clear that the author values this specific theory, predicated on the central theme of

industrial material wealth as the catalyst of an American style of warfighting. There lacks,
4
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

however, comparative data to the war fighting styles of other nation states to further remove the

author from his or her own potential cultural bias. The author is a US military officer, and as

such may have an internal bias towards seeing his or her own military force through an objective

lens. Paul & Elder (2016) label sociocentric thinking as culturally bound, leading to uncritically

internalization of the dominant prejudices of their culture. Contrasting other nation states would

go a long way in situating the reader in a broader context. Instead, we are left with only an

internal singular view of this theory.

Currency

The article itself is not dated, and therefore becomes difficult in ascertaining the

relevancy. The latest date that this article could be placed is 2011 or after, as this is the latest

source given within the references cited. Additionally, the oldest source used is from the 1970s.

It is important to note that the references cited are within a relevant time period due to the broad

nature of the topic covered, and there is also a wide range of sources cited from decades past,

lending to a wider understanding of the topic. Strategic planning likely will shift over an

extended period, yet given the authors claim that there is a consistent “way” in which Americans

conduct war, the author retains credibility by using any modern resource within their citation,

balancing it with older sources.

Coverage

It is hard to tell what level of analysis is appropriate for this article. The author focuses on

breadth over depth and requires the reader to pause each time the author makes an assertion. Paul

& Elder (2016) characterize breadth as an important factor in determining quality in

argumentation, namely, the amount of potential viewpoints to consider. In effect, the author
5
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

touches on numerous related topics, but struggles to provide compelling evidence to support his

or her claims. This, large part, is due to the author’s attempt at tangentially covering every

relatable subject in terms of national military strategy. The attempt to cover every subject in this

domain leaves main ideas isolated and disjointed, preventing the reader from connecting each of

these topics together in a coherent way. Good coverage balances the number of topics with

sufficient depth enough in each to support those ideas.

Quality of writing

Due to the inconsistence of connected topics, the reader is left with trusting the author’s

assertions at face value based on their identity of being a military officer. While the officer’s

voice was clear, what was not clear was where the author’s opinions began and ended. Numerous

explicit statements were given as fact, which distracts from evidence-based academic writing.

Citing sources would help separate the author’s opinion from his or her sources, as the Purdue

Owl, 2018 section on APA (2019) style workshop denotes.

Several times, the author had grammatical errors that also detracted from the credibility

of the arguments put forth. The author used domain-specific jargon that carried meaning within

the military domain, yet is not defined for the reader. For example, “This is possible through

actual overwhelming military success or just the appearance of overmatch.” The term overmatch,

in this case, should be defined even for military professionals, as this term is new within the

current lexicon, especially for a junior officer for whom the author is writing to. This would take

into account Purdue Owl’s (2019) section on group jargon.

6
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Quality of Sources

The strongest part of this article was the credibility of sources. Each source was relevant

and trustworthy and considered credible within the military domain. The author does a good job

of getting sources that span a number of decades, giving a longitude element to his or her

perspectives. Finding articles, as well as published books that cover the topic, are appropriate as

the military domain gives considerable value to subject matter experts over primary research.

These topics require an orientation towards meaning, and each of the cited sources provides this

credibility to the article at hand.

Citations and Reference Section

Several times within the article, the author makes supporting arguments that rely on

unsubstantiated claims. One example is, “In American war, the means have always been

available.” This argument within itself is heavily debatable, considering numerous conflicts in

which the means have not been available, specifically, the Korean conflict, which is cited earlier

in the article. This is a major oversight that could have been avoided if the author would have

included evidence in support of each claim, as well as citations.

It is important to note that endnotes were used in place of parenthetical citations, which,

according to MLA styling, is allowed (Purdue Owl, 2019). However, the author did not follow

the MLA guidelines, which requires a references section, nor a title page, lending the reader to

believe that they neither intended to write in the style of MLA, nor APA. Writing in a consistent

academic format such as APA or MLA lends credibility to the author and reassures potential

readers that due diligence was done in attributing ideas to their original sources.
7
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Conclusion

Overall, the article did not meet the requirements of a scholarly article. Both academic

styling and citations were notably lacking through the article. The content of the article was too

broad to develop meaning, lacking sufficient depth to support the authors thesis. Advanced,

domain-specific jargon was used that limited the scope to an excessively narrow audience.

Finally, strong, affirmative language was used without supporting evidence, forcing the reader to

believe the author on face value alone. It is recommended that the author narrow the topics

covered to focus on supporting them with several examples, and cite those examples according

to APA or MLA format to remain consistent and further credibility.

8
UNIT FOUR ARTICLE CRITIQUE

References

American Psychological Association. (2019). The Basics of APA Style. Retrieved from

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/tutorials/basics-tutorial

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2016). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools (7th

edition). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Purdue Writing Lab. (2019). Purdue OWL // Purdue Writing Lab. APA Style Workshop.

Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html

Purdue Writing Lab. (2019). Purdue OWL // Purdue Writing Lab. Group Jargon. Retrieved from

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html

XYZ, US MILITARY OFFICER. (n.d.). Understanding the American Way of War: The

Planner’s Dilemma.