Amid Fears of Releases, U.S. Cedes Prison to Afghanistan

Rod Nordland and Alissa Rubin of the New York Times delve into the current standing of American interaction with the Afghan government.  The article opens with three paragraphs packed with logos regarding the situation.  The authors use these paragraphs to set up the fact that the American military recently turned over a majority of Taliban prisoners to the Afghan government.  Directly following the details of this situation, they write “If recent history is any guide, the decisions the Afghans make on Taliban releases after taking control are not likely to reassure the American military.”  This quotation demonstrates the authors’ biased opinion that the choice to give the Afghan government control of the prisoners may not of been smart.  This quotation acts a transition from the section based mainly on logos to the following paragraphs, which consider future possibilities and implications on our country.  These paragraphs play more toward pathos in attempt to help the reader emotionally connect to the article and gain a better understanding of its possible implications.  For example Nordland and Rubin directly refer to the potential disaster when they state, “Keenly aware of such cases, American military commanders had stubbornly insisted that they retain some control over decisions about releasing prisoners, which in turn led to a toxic, protracted dispute with the government of President Hamid Karzai.”  A slight sense of sarcasm is evident as they then refer to the upcoming “toxic, protracted dispute.”  Although this section of the article contains pathos, the authors continue to use facts from the past to support their statements.  They explain a specific past scenario when they write, “Among those released in recent years by Afghan officials or Afghan courts were most of the 46 Taliban prisoners who had been returned from the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.”  By referring to this case, Nordland and Rubin demonstrate the past failure of these attempts.  The author’s use the frequent inclusion of these past facts combined with their own voice to form a disapproving tone toward the American decision to transfer control of the troops.  Although the article contains clear aspects of a biased voice, it successfully communicates the details of the situation while also portraying a possible outcome.