Communication Strategies

A. Introduction
The purpose of this assignment is to critically evaluate the much talked about farewell address to Congress by Douglas MacArthur on April 19, 1951. This analysis takes into account the goals of the speaker and the rhetoric used by the speaker to convey meaning and value to its target audiences. Born in Little Rock, Arkansas, Douglas MacArthur was educated at West Point Military Academy. He gained extensive fame through his military activities in the Pacific during World War II and the cold war. He rose through the military ranks with each military prowess and successful campaigns.

B. Historical Background
When America joined World War I in 1917, Douglas MacArthur was sent to France where he distinguished himself. He remained Chief of Staff of the American Army from 1930 to 1935.  In World War II, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he was put in charge of the Philippines where he had to defend the islands against the attack by the Japanese. Although he failed at the beginning, he later took on a strategy known as island-hopping (Carpenter 1). This then provided the capacity for him to bounce back from the hurdle and recapture the Philippines from the Japanese after 3 years of occupation. It was predicted that American casualties would be high and President Truman ordered the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Cumings, Abrahamian, and Maoz). As Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, MacArthur used his influence as head of the occupation forces to gain the favor of Emperor Hirohito. By this time, politicians and forces in America disliked the power MacArthur had accrued for himself. After the involvement in World War II, MacArthur remained in the limelight as head of the United Nations. He further displayed his military prowess and enhanced his stature much to the annoyance of others. His downfall began when time and time again he embarked on a series of insubordination acts. The ultimatum for him to be relieved of his command came in 1951 when he protested against the failure of President Truman to give him orders to destroy the bridges that crossed the Yalu River (Willoughby and Chamberlain 295-296).
MacArthur returned home to the largest parade in US history. He presented his case to a joint session of
Congress on April 19, 1951 which attracted a tremendous radio and television audience. It is a true fact that no soldier had been more admired as a national hero than Douglas MacArthur.

C. Goals of the Speaker
Analyzing the goals of the speaker, it can be seen that the purpose of MacArthur speech seeks to argue about his position concerning what has happened in the military. His manner of talking with the crowd provides opportunities for listeners to be captivated and appreciate his choice of words, value and decisions, and the relevance of his remarks during his time. This then provided corresponding analyses in determining his purpose in the way MacArthur conveys towards his target audiences.

As a speaker, Douglas MacArthur has extremely high ethos. Having been a military man all his life, he is extremely comfortable and delivers his speech with authority. This is especially evident when he states the following line general truisms, I shall confine my discussion. Although he appears solemn and has a grave expression most of the time, he manages for almost thirty-seven minutes to deliver his speech to an audience that practically laps up his every word. This speech provided an opportunity for him to tell his side of the story and he did not want to waste it nor disappoint his audience. He intended to show conviction and succeeded especially when he says, I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of light, with but one purpose in mind to serve my country. He probably wanted to show that he did not hold any grudges.

His speech was also primarily praised for values and attitudes which audiences held dear. In here, he was able to highlight the values that make America special and the capacity of these corresponding principles to drive the necessary elements towards change.  This is especially so when he says, this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised and in statements such as while Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other.

The lack of gesticulation or body language only reminds us that he does not try to impress. In essence, he still holds the capacity to show his authority and maturity both as a speaker and leader. In here, he allows his experience do the talking and does not need any body gestures in order to make his point or justify his objectives. His theatrical presence itself does the amazing wonders. He appears genuine and almost pitiful when he remarks, I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available.  This is further heightened by the accusation, It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger.

At the same time, MacArthurs speech also provides his ability to make predictions in the future. In particular, he uses this objective in order to create and develop a particular mindset towards Americans over a specific course of action or endeavor. Here he is very effective in instilling fear when he remarks, If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. Indirectly, he also gets back at President Truman and his enemies at Washington when he says, Wars very object is victory, not prolonged indecision (qtd. in Finn 32-33). This then brings about the current capacity to recognize that his speech derives the ability to change and look for means to achieve it. At the same time, this means that MacArthur values prompt action and initiative instead of just pointing out what people needs to do.

Towards the end of his speech, he says, I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. Audiences listening would probably go home with the impression that he was truly not at fault and he had not deserted the Army. Throughout his campaigns, he has increasingly showed dedication and value towards preserving American interests. Though his actions were sometimes considered to be radical and out of context, MacArthur did this to provide effective means to further the protection of peace and stability around the world.

This again was a success to him as his goal was probably to shift the blame to the President and the politicians who were envious of his power and authority. This capacity to showcase such direction became essential in attaining his goals. Despite the lack of support from his military superiors and even the President of the country where he serves, MacArthur gained the respect, admiration, and trust of the people which remains to be essential especially during the latter days of his life.  When he finally closes his speech with the phrase, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty he successfully comes across as a warm and genuine yet unappreciated individual who sacrificed his life for the country.

D. Rhetorical Barriers
Despite his oratorical prowess, MacArthurs speech comes across as rather unconvincing. He was in a room full of not just passive listeners who would let him get away but officers who were waiting to bombard him with their accusations. Since he was relieved from the military due to acts of insubordination, this speech can also serve as a ground for finding and determining seditious remarks that may be destructive to the government. The complexity of the issue at hand further made this task of having to convince a harder one. It was one mans word against the rest. In here, MacArthur felt constrained in furthering his goals and objectives accordingly.

Another rhetorical barrier that hindered the achievement of MacArthurs objectives revolves around his capacity to provide justification for his arguments. Here, it concentrated in the concept of validity and sought to express such idea in a more exploratory tone. The audience was probably familiar with his oratorical flamboyance and needed more evidence of conviction to stay on his side of the argument. This direction can then create better appreciation and further the objective and limit the occurrence of historical barriers accordingly.

E. Rhetorical Strategies
MacArthur uses well crafted words even when he is indirectly chiding the President and his enemies. Throughout his speech, we notice that he is austere, almost appearing rather aloof. The phrase, an old soldier who tried to do his duty captured the audiences attention.  His articulation of apt sentences when appropriate to enhance his stature as a military leader reveals him as a rhetorically sensitive individual who is willing to tolerate the hardship of adaptation during the period of war. His listeners eagerly waited to hear his rational arguments on why timely decisions had to be taken in the wake of war. Seeing this, one essential aspect of MacArthurs rhetorical strategy revolves around the ability to choose effective themes to convey value and meaning to the American audiences

The style of delivery as well as the somber tone of further heightens the essence of his speech. Descriptive clauses such as the hopes and dreams have long since vanished is interspersed with old soldiers never die, they just fade away, when taken together, draws on the audiences emotions and gets away with clich almost with great ease and success. Given his ability to draw out emotions among audiences, he uses his tone and voice to create impact among listeners. Here, he draws out emotions coming from his experiences, encounters and personal beliefs that are relevant to the audience and listeners.

F. Effectiveness
 Despite his idiosyncrasies, MacArthur was almost never lost for choice and apt words. As mentioned by Charles Burton Marshall of the New Republic, Fancy language came to him like Cherokee to Cherokee. He almost always is able to impress his audience with his spoken words, although in this particular incident, he may have misjudged the audience. By effectively touching on the values and sentiments of the people, he is seen in a favorable light. This farewell speech was to a certain extent persuasive in nature as he tried to get the audience to see it from his point of view. However, if he had been careful and not been too liberal with his accusations, he would have at least saved himself from any embarrassment. As reiterated by Marshall, this address also tarnished his reputation as it served to heighten the significance of Trumans dismissal of him as well as crystallize some issues that were of longstanding significance to the American foreign policy.

This means that the dismissal of MacArthur until he provided this speech clearly becomes the motivation of this speech. Here, the choice of becoming acquainted with the changes within American foreign policy is ever increasing. However, his limitations to adapt according to these trends justify the necessary inputs and qualms surrounding his speech and his removal from his position. It can be argued that this remain to be the primary motivation shaping his perspective and views concerning American culture and the current struggle of many families in the Korean War.

Nevertheless, while MacArthurs speech lacks persuasiveness, it is still relatively successful in the short term. This can be seen in the context of the Presidents radio speech announcing the dismissal of MacArthur. When both these speech sets are taken into consideration, it is evident that MacArthur gained ground for his oratorical prowess rather than the convincing nature of his argument. Although he had not exposed any flaws in his reasoning, the series of witnesses that followed him certainly did. As shared by D. Clayton and other historians, the general public expected President Truman to explain his action of dismissing MacArthur, but he failed to do so. This naturally swayed the cards in favor of MacArthur but this was short lived.

Given such analysis, it clearly illustrates how ones capacity to induce the crowd eventually fades away after the hype is over. It demonstrates the limited ability of MacArthur to justify his permanence in his speeches. Indeed it can be argued that he is considered to be one of the most influential persons in the 20th century. However, his work would not only be credited in his successful military strategies but also his ability to induce his views in a less persuasive manner.

Given these ideas, the nature of his MacArthurs speech directs attention to his past and previous achievements. It illustrates the last chance of one man to provide an impact to the citizenry and country that he has served through the years. The values and valor he has showcased then becomes the highlight of his ideas. Such dynamics then provided the necessary needs to establish influence and permanence to his work. As observed by another historian, David McCullough, There was nothing bland about him, nothing passive about him, nothing dull about him. Theres no question about his patriotism, theres no question about his courage, and theres no question, it seems to me about his importance as one of the protagonists of the 20th Century. The speech then became the last show for the General who had fought many wars and succeeded in becoming a legend and important person in history to be talked about for many years to come. But now everything must come to an end. MacArthurs biographer James writes, By the time, Marshall and the Joint chiefs were finished, MacArthurs strategic thinking, for the first time in his career, had been torn to shreds not by liberal correspondents or politicians but by the top four officers of the American military establishment (MacArthur Archives qtd. in Cumings)

G. Conclusion
As a military commander, MacArthur was an icon of what a perfect officer should be. He was not only intelligent but had a great amount of integrity and charisma. Apparently, he failed to realize that he was but only a dice in the game plan. President Truman wanted a reliable commander on the scene should America decide to use nuclear weapons and not another President-wanna-be in the making. If only he had served that very purpose, he would not have endangered national interest nor tarnished his rock solid reputation as a commander. But nevertheless he had to do what he thinks is necessary. His actions and responses are all recorded in history and contributes to how much we can understand the inspiration towards his specific actions.

The analysis of his speech clearly illustrates this distinction. It shows one proud soldier who have sought to showcase deep loyalty to the preservation of peace, stability, and democracy to the rest of the world. Though he may lack the necessary persuasiveness in his speeches, his ability to convey themes and big words provided the motivation to create better patterns that allow his views and ideals to be imparted effectively to his target audiences. These realities then became the basis for understanding his views and points in MacArthurs speech.

In the end, these analyses provide better insights to understand the mindset and emotions of a person. It opens up doors to gain information and let everyone appreciate his significance and worth. As Shakespeare reminds us, big wars make ambition a virtue. It is an undeniable truth that Douglas MacArthur was indeed one of the most interesting and important figures of the century (277-78). Unfortunately, true to his very words, the old soldier faded away from public eye. He lived quietly in New York until his death in 1964.