For those not familiar with the current situation in Syria, over two years ago a war erupted between the Syrian Ba’ath regime, headed by president/dictator Bashar al-Assad, and the Syrian rebel group, The Free Syrian Army. Since the start of the civil war, over 110,000 lives have been lost amidst the fight for democracy. Aside from the incredible death toll, the millions of Syrian refugees that have spilled into borders of neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan have created an issue of both space and finances for those nations. On August 21, the war took a turn for the worst as chemical weapons – an established war crime, which the international community would soon find out were the work of Assad and his regime – were introduced and resulted in the death of 1,429 innocent Syrians, including 426 children, when blasted off into eleven neighborhoods outside of Damascus. The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government served as the sole focus of Obama’s Tuesday night address to the American people.
—
It’s eight p.m. Central time. The camera zooms in on the somber face of President Barack Obama. Dressed in a crisp white shirt, blue tie, navy blazer, and an American flag pinned to his lapel, the second-term president slowly opens his mouth and begins addressing the Syrian crisis at hand.
Obama chose to begin his speech with a stirring and gruesome appeal to the viewer’s pathos. He reported on the use of chemical weapons saying, “Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.” This statement served to paint a painstakingly grim picture of the Syrian situation in the minds of all watching the address. Interestingly enough, Obama continually mentioned children throughout the speech, indicating that he believes an appeal to human nature will serve as an effective method in garnering more popular support for his proposed “targeted military attack” on the tumultuous North African country.
Another notable aspect of the president’s speech lay in the formatting. He chose to hold a “Q&A” of sorts in which he presented questions that had been commonly asked via email or through members of Congress and then proceeded to directly follow up with his answer to the question. By utilizing this method, Obama was able to create a more direct connection with his audience while also asserting his logos through his methodical and thoroughly thought-out response to each respective question. The questions he answered included those inquiring about the potential wars the United States involvement in Syria could cause, the legitimacy and impact a “pinprick attack” would have, and the dangers of potential retaliation from those against American involvement, among others.
After watching the entire speech and reviewing the text, one can confidently say that a big part of Obama’s interest in intervention lies in a fear of the domino effect. In other words, if the United States and the international community stand by and allow chemical weapons (considered a war crime) to be used by a dictator, it sets a precedent for other dictators that it’s “okay” to commit war crimes among other atrocities. Obama elaborated on this point, noting the potential of tyrants to gain increased apathy towards pre-determined international standards saying, “when dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory…the facts cannot be denied.” Obama also mentioned the danger of weapons of mass destruction spilling over the Syrian border in the US-allied nations such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.
The president’s carefully thought-out language in the speech manifested itself in his repeated use of “I” as opposed to “we.” It presented a situation in which Obama was taking sole responsibility for military action in Syria, contrary to what some believed to be “spreading of the blame” when he took the vote regarding military intervention to Congress. His use of “I” creates an interesting dichotomy in word choice when compared to his predecessor George W. Bush who very often used “we.”
Obama additionally spoke of the recent developments between Syria and its close ally, Russia, in which Syria would surrender all of its chemical weapons to the International community. Despite this new diplomatic measure, the president did assert that he had “ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.” This is perhaps a suggestion that Obama does not believe diplomacy will triumph in the current crisis.
The president brought his fifteen-minute speech to a close with a quotation from former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt stating, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”
Objectively speaking, the speech was very good. It was delivered in a clear and concise manner, it addressed some of the most commonly-asked questions, it employed a good dosage of effective rhetoric, and most importantly briefed the public on past, present, and future developments pertaining to the Syrian crisis.
If you would like to read the full transcript or watch the speech please go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/say-what/obama-syria-speech/
