The two main analytical approaches to pro-war rhetoric were founded by Ronald Reid, a professor of Communication Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Robert Ivie, a professor of Rhetoric and Public Communication and Culture at Indiana University (Bloomington).
[1] By “narrating recent ‘encroachments’ along the frontier,” the orator proposes these seemingly isolated attacks are part of a bigger takeover conspiracy.
Therefore, when an orator is able to “establish a ‘realistic’ image of the enemy's savagery,” he “eliminate[s] peace as a viable alternative to war.
"[8] According to Ivie, pro-war rhetoric identifies three topoi; force vs. freedom, irrational vs. rational, and aggression vs. defense.
This tactic portrays to the audience that they are entering war to provide freedom, and the opponent to force their values upon others (Ivie 284).
This topos holds that the enemy is portrayed as irrational, responding "more to animalistic drives than principles of law" (Ivie 288).
Rhetors use this argument to prove that when an enemy such as this threatens the well-being of the world, even for a nation committed to neutrality and peace, war is the only choice (Ivie 289).
This idea portrays the enemy as the voluntary aggressor and the nation of the audience as the passive victims of aggression, only entering into war to ensure security (Ivie 290).
The purpose of this topos is to lay the blame on the enemy and justify reasons for the victimized nation to engage in action.