On September 10, President Barack Obama delivered a
speech to the American public regarding the situation in Syria. He made many
points, some compelling and noteworthy and some recycled and useless. One key
point resonated with many Americans. President Obama made the issue feel like a
situation that affects American security by saying, “If we fail to act, the
Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban
against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice
about acquiring poison gas[es] and using them.” In stating this, Obama
attempted to appeal to the left by differentiating this attack from the wars of
Iraq and Afghanistan by showing a lack of action can cause harm to many other
innocent nations and people.
Furthering elaborating on the aforementioned point, Obama
continued, “Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical
warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations
to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians.” By arguing that
inaction could eventually harm our own troops and decrease the amount of safety
we feel in our own nation, Obama made the issue one of homeland security and
pro-military. These issues would help sway the political right to join in
Obama’s cause.
Overall, the speech received mixed responses from many
news sources. In a Fox News article
entitled, “My fellow members of Congress, let’s vote on a Syria strike and
bring Obama back from Never Never Land”, Rep. Ted Poe argued that Obama’s
arguments fell flat. He wrote, “An American strike will not guarantee that
Assad will not use chemical weapons again. Chances are he did not empty out his
chest the first time. What will we do if he goes for round two, strike again?
Some reports say that he has chemical weapons at 50 different sites.” Still, many
liberal leaning journalists supported the speech. In his article, “Ultimate Reason to Support Resolution
Authorizing Use of Military Force to Stop Chemical Weapons in Syria: It's
Working”, Robert Creamer argued that Obama’s decided course of action was the
correct one. Creamer agrees with Obama, saying, “If the use of chemical
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction can occur with impunity any where
on our small planet, they will be used more and more frequently in military
conflicts. And if they are, they pose a massive danger for human beings
everywhere.”
President Obama’s address on the crisis in Syria was meant to explain his view on the issue. Keeping in mind that the President was addressing the entire nation, he had to make points that for some were reassuring and for others, confusing. He answered many questions regarding the possibility of war, whether its worth taking action and why not leave it to other countries. The President presented his answers in a manner which explained to the people that America is a leader, and the burden of leadership is great. The key point was to explain why he, as President, thinks it necessary to act in Syria. He appealed to the nation’s morals by describing helpless people. He appealed to our own sense of safety by explaining that if the U.S does not act, “the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” This would not directly effect the U.S until “the ban against these weapons erodes” and U.S troops would have to face them in battle. Obama stated that he does not want “American boots on the ground in Syria” unless completely necessary. Peaceful attempts to solve the matter are in the works and will hopefully be successful.
ReplyDeleteWhat illustrates the views on Obama’s address can be captured by the other elected officials’ responses. Maryland Representative, Steny Hoyer said, “I don't think there's any doubt that failure to do so would weaken our country, create a more dangerous international environment and to some degree undermine the president of the United States." Senator Chuck Schumer stated, "There is an overwhelming view it would be preferable if international law and the family of nations could strip Syria of the chemical weapons. And there's a large view we should let that process play out for a little while." Perhaps there just is not enough information or a plan that truly shows what will happen in Syria just yet. The majority is against war all together even though many news sources have differing views. However, the ones who are attempting to keep out a political bias seem to be responding along the same line; lets see where the diplomatic approach goes, and let time decide.