The hole at the heart of the president's speech

[Proud Public Servant]

I've been reading the threads about last night's speech, both as a new-ish DUer and as a foreign affairs and public affairs professional, and I haven't seen anyone distill this yet...so I'll try.

The president addressed the nation last night in order to make an argument. Now, an argument is a linear thing -- but his came out a little like the way my Christmas lights (also a linear thing) do every year, no matter how carefully I put them away. Still, like my Christmas lights, the argument can be untangled. Here's my sense of it, in outline form (since any good argument can be outlined, although I do wish I had a way to indent):

I. Assad gassed his own people, including children
A. This is morally repugnant
B. This is a violation of every international norm going back almost a century

II. The US has a special obligation to do something about this
A. We are a superpower (but not World Cop)
B. We are a moral nation and we stand for something

III. Still, war is bad, so we will pursue a diplomatic solution
A. We will do this because, as my actions in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, I don't believe in military solutions
B. We will press Assad to give up chemical weapons
C. This will solve the problem

IV. But if that doesn't work, we will seek a military solution
A. We will do this because we have to do something (see II, above)
B. We will...we will...hang on...
1. Ok, here, let me tell you what we will NOT do:
a. Not do pinpricks
b. Not put boots on the ground
2. So something in between almost nothing and full-scale war, which sure leaves me a lot of wiggle room. Let's move on.
C. And in doing this, we will accomplish...um...
1. Ok, here, let me tell you what we will NOT accomplish
a. We won't get entangled in a war
b. We won't remove Assad from power
c. We won't get rid of Assad's chemical weapons
2. And that will solve...um...

And that's where the speech kind of runs out. So if you thought it was a good speech, I'm guessing you (like me) thought the points laid out in I-III were rock-solid and exactly the sort of thing our president should be saying to his fellow Americans and the world. But if you thought it was ultimately incoherent, you probably detected (like me) that the president is still asking for a military strike (as a solution of last resort) without providing any clear sense of how a military strike would alter, let alone improve, the situation.

In the end, we're left with a president who wants to do the right thing (yay! there's the man I voted for!) but is perfectly willing to do the wrong and stupid thing if he needs to (WTF?), including avenge innocent Syrians by killing innocent Syrians. That's the hole at the heart of his speech -- and the heart of the food fight at DU.

[snappyturtle]

1. It's a reality soap opera. Stay tuned. nt

[iemitsu]

2. Fine outline.

Second to last paragraph, after (as a solution of last resort), with should be without?

[Proud Public Servant]

4. yep, fixed it - thanks! (nt)

[iemitsu]

46. :)

[1awake]

3. Your post count clearly is to low for you to be taken seriously

thus, making you a plant. Off with you and your suspiciously accurate outline of truth!


Seriously... nice.

[SamKnause]

5. Speech

Nicely done.

[truebluegreen]

6. Well said! Thank you.

[freedom fighter jh]

7. Yes. But.

I didn't really think the first part was rock solid, unless the US's obligation to "do something" means something nonviolent. A strike on a country that does threaten us is illegal. This ties in to your question -- which, I agree, is at the heart of the food fight at DU -- of how bombing Syria is going to make things better there, not worse. The international community has agreed to laws for a reason. It's only under very limited circumstances that war is the right thing; that's because war creates huge problems.

[riderinthestorm]

8. Bravo!! Really great summation. K&R nt

[CANDO]

9. A thought just occured to me.

Doesn't happen often, but..... Any way, remember the cons using the argument sort of as a last resort on us going after Iraq..."but he (Saddam) gassed his own people"? It was totally ridiculous of course, because he had done so something like 15 years prior to our invasion. But I've seen the future, and let's assume PBO forgoes a military strike; the next R President will always have "but he gassed his own people" as an excuse to invade Syria. You heard it here first. If Obama doesn't, the cons will take care of it at a later date.

[Whiskeytide]

10. I did not hear all of the Prez's speech...

... but I did watch Jon Stewart last night. Regrettably, it was NOT while I was staying at a Holiday Inn, but still...

You make fine points. But I tend to look for the most obvious motives and goals in a situation like this, even though the crisis is very complicated and nuanced. And, at the end of the day, the President appears to have accomplished a very nuanced solution to the problem. If it goes according to plan, Assad will give up control of his chemical weapons, Putin and Obama will be able to simultaneously claim not only respective victories, but also a solution born of cooperation between the two (and that's big politically), and the President has engaged in a sufficient amount of saber rattling so as not to appear weak on foreign policy. It may not be a solution everyone likes, but its probably the one that most would favor. No one is gassed again, and we don't bomb anyone.

I suspect the reason he seems scattered on what the military option would look like is because the admin genuinely believes it is most likely irrelevant - since its not going to happen. That, and it probably is good military strategy not to provide details about how you might go about attacking an enemy - in the hopefully unlikely event it all falls apart and something has to be done militarily. And, he has to keep up the game for the time being. He can't very well admit that he has pulled a rope-a-dope and say "gotcha" in a televised speech, right?

Just my two cents, anyway.

[peace13]

17. And why does he want us to see dead children from Syria yet refuse to show our own children..

From sandy Hook? Let's face it pictures of dead children are not good for anyone to see. Why he told every American to look at those videos again is pretty clear. He wants us to be so mad about the dead children that he can do whatever he wants as a result.

I agree the drone assaults kill innocents every day. Obama runs it, he owns it and he has lost all credibility about talking about innocent children being killed....unless....he wants to talk about those that he has killed.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. How about pictures of dead children from US drone strikes?

Sauce for the goose.

How does one claim morality or accuse others of having no morals when our nation is responsible for civilian deaths (see children) as well?

[peace13]

22. Agree! n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

47. How about recommending people watch "Collateral Murder" video Wikileaks showed?

[Cryptoad]

12. I can remember being a anti-war activist back in the 60's and 70's

we thought we had it all figured out, too!

[L0oniX]

38. COINTELPRO had it all figured out for us. n/t

[Cryptoad]

39. Ole J Edga and many more

had it all figured out for us. Including ourselves ! In a way , it is Kinda fun to see the Old Drums beat again, if you know what I mean.

[cilla4progress]

13. What is clear to me is that his primary target for the speech,

the "audience," was Assad. He and Kerry are trying to scare Assad into really believing he will strike, while it's quite clear this is not something in his (Obama's) DNA to do.

He is not someone who espouses or uses violence indiscriminately - drones aside (big aside, I know...), but without there being a tangible threat to the US. He is either strongly convinced of this - that the CW present a credible imminent threat to us or our allies, based on info he has but we do not, or he simply finds the murder of these civilians so repugnant to be worthy of this type of response. In addition, he is convinced that our military can execute the strikes without additional injuries to civilians?

Obama and Kerry's stances are uncharacteristic. Has the power contorted their value systems? Do they have intel we do not that shows Assad's CWs as a bigger, imminent, threat than we know? ARE they an imminent threat? SHOULD their proliferation be nipped in the bud, as it were? Should we take Obama at his word.

[somethingshiny]

24. Clearly,

Assad has been the intended audience all along. Totally agree that the stances of Obama and Kerry are completely uncharacteristic and smelled very fishy to me from the start. It would appear that Assad is taking the threats seriously, and I can't for the life of me understand how the president can be perceived as weak in this showdown. It would appear that he's about to accomplish exactly what he intended, without military involvement.

[cilla4progress]

26. I don't know...

Time will tell, of course. I find the idea of strikes entirely repugnant and unacceptable. I hope this high stakes poker works.

[peace13]

14. Unfortunately I got home in time to tune in to the last few minutes of the speech.

Something about the right and the left...you can all suck it. And by the way, please watch the pornographic dead children videos if you need to understand my rationale.

I felt like he was angry at any American who pays attention to his war dealings. How this man can run a drone fleet that kills innocent people, men, women and children on a daily basis across the globe and then have the balls to speak to Americans like that is just beyond it all.

I do not need to watch the video Mr. President. The killing has been burned into my brain! My sorrow for the dead children and their families lives in my heart. You can not make a case to me for killing more innocent people to avenge the deaths of innocent people. If I ever do understand that kind of thinking I want to be put down or put away. That is not any way for a human to think.

Those of us who have been speaking out and standing for peace for what turns out to be a lifetime are exhausted by what we see and hear from you. This my friend is terminal grief!

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

15. The truth will be told...

and taught in our Revisionist History books.

Sorry meant to add to you, great job on the outline couldn't agree more!

[Yo_Mama]

16. Nice summary, and I agree with it.

In reality though, it is only threatening point IV that allows point III. Syria has never signed the chemical weapons ban, and only fundamentally changing their calculus can get us toward removing or demobbing those weapons.

So maybe point IV is a bit incoherent, but that's because it is a theoretical option to be used to somehow remove the chemical weapons in Syria, and the actual form it would take would be entirely dependent on the circumstances at the time, especially international circumstances.

The problem for us all is that if the threat doesn't work the President has to start actually using force, and from there things can spiral out of control in one hell of a hurry.

Pushing Russia to realize that we could and might knock over Syria may give an incentive to Putin to put pressure on Assad or lose his Syrian hole card.

[valerief]

18. I wonder what would happen if he told the truth. Of course, that would never happen.

Transmission would be cut. He'd be assassinated by a, um, rebel. Old MICDonald would go on, as usual, harvesting hearts and minds and bodies for war to protect the US dollar and the wealth of everyone who owns oodles of US dollars.

But if he could speak the truth, how many of us would be pro-war?

Just posing the question here, not condoning war.

[kiva]

35. Do you really think that Obama is an unwilling hostage

to the MIC? That if he didn't follow some sort of pre-written script he'd be killed? If that's what you really believe, I think there's a CT group on DU that's a better place to post this.

[KittyWampus]

19. So really, Assad will just comply if we give him a box of candy and nicely worded note.

[durablend]

31. No far better

That we bomb some democracy into some more Syrian kids...that'll teach him for opposing the almighty USA!!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. Other communications professionals disagree with you

And believe it's the most compelling and thoughtful argument he's made in at least 2 years.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. Please proceed, pretzel...

[Skinner]

25. I disagree, and here's why.

Part III will not be successful without the threat of Part IV.

If the president said that he was not asking for a military strike -- if the president said that diplomacy was the final option and there was no threat of punishment hanging over that diplomacy -- then Assad would have an incentive to just run out the clock. They could string us along for as long or as short as they like, they could decide to never agree to a deal, and there would be no consequences for them.

Frankly, it baffles me that so many DUers don't seem to get this. Assad is not offering to give up his chemical weapons out of the goodness of his heart. He is doing it because he believes the consequences of not making the offer would be worse. We need to keep up the pressure so he believes it is in his best interest to make a deal.

[cilla4progress]

28. Do we really think that Assad buys that Obama will strike

without Congress or public support? Esp. after going out of his way to get it (Congress)?

I don't know, for certain...

[Skinner]

30. Yes, I do think that Obama will strike. And I think Assad believes it.

And if you want evidence, look around this discussion forum and see all the people freaking out because they believe he'll do it, too.

[BlueStreak]

27. No fair. You identifed a dozen holes. Only one hole per post please.

[mehrrh]

29. Obama and D.U.

This site has become so anti-Obama that I suspect it may have been taken over by Red State.

As for the speech last night -- the president is actively and eagerly seeking resolution that does not include war activity. But in order to maintain the pressure on Assad (and his allies) he must continue to saber-rattle with determination to strike if diplomacy fails and Assad reneges on the deal.
What is so hard to understand?
International diplomacy is paramount -- domestic wrangling and positioning, based on the RW vow to obstruct anything from Obama even if they had supported it in the past -- they hate the president so much, they will sooner see war, or domestic economic depression, sick and ailing populace with little hope for medical care -- they will stop at nothing to undermine him, even as it undermines the nation; even the world.
Did you all forget the first decade of this century? Did you all forget how much the president has already accomplished despite this obstruction? Do you wake up every day to think of another post in criticism? We have enough rightwing nuts and teabaggers to do that -- you don't need to join them.

[Number23]

34. Fantastic post. Thanks for that and welcome to DU.

[Broward]

36. So, attacks from the left evoke suspicion of a takeover by Red Staters?

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[bvar22]

42. That makes as much sense as the President's speech last night,

so why not?

[BainsBane]

32. The one that struck out for me

Was the argument that Al Qaeda could only prevail if it became clear the world wouldn't do anything about chemical weapons. I can't imagine even he believes that one.

[joanbarnes]

33. Thank you for the succinct clarification, I'm a little less confused...

[zipplewrath]

37. This one I don't get

"A. We will do this because, as my actions in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, I don't believe in military solutions"

How do any of his actions indicate that he "doesn't believe in military actions"?

The list of times he's lead with his fist is hard to pin down. In Iraq he did NOTHING to hasten an end to that. He kept Gates on and executed the EXACT plan left over from the previous administration. He even allowed his Sec Def and State to try to negotiate last minute agreements to leave a presence there. They failed and we had to leave.

He tripled the commitment to Afghanistan for years. We still aren't gone. He did this over the advice of his VP which advocated a completely different plan involving way fewer troops.

He has been a prolific user of drone strikes (aka assasinations) in Pakistan

He has advocate for the right/power to assassinate US citizens on his authority alone, and has done so.

He has executed drone strikes in countries on at least two continents.

He executed military attacks on Libya.

He has supplied and supported the violent actors in Syria to date.

Upon learning of upwards of the 11th chemical attack in Syria, after 100,000 people have died, his first public solution offered was a military attack. He only publicly discussed anything else after the UK said no, things looked bad for him in Congress, and Kerry accidentally mentioned a diplomatic solution that Russia thought made good theater.

Where in any of that is an indication that Obama "doesn't believe in military actions"?

[Enrique]

40. i don't expect coherence from politicians

that's why I don't read books by politicians.

[AgingAmerican]

41. When he started talking about 'pinpricks'

...he lost me. He shouldn't react to the RW idiots. He shouldn't acknowledge their crackpot nonsense, because nothing he can say will placate them.

[bvar22]

43. Excellent Summation.

The most confusing part for me was when he said he was going to explain HOW this affects OUR National Security,
and then didn't.

DURec.

[woo me with science]

44. kick

[truedelphi]

45. I'm expecting someone to come in with Mr Spock, who would say,

"Fascinating."

Anyway, what a superior demonstration of logic. Thank you and a hearty Kick.

[yurbud]

48. big problem with I-III: if Obama & friends care about chemical weapons why didn't they punish Bush?

Bush & Cheney were using white phosphorous in Fallujah and liberally sprinkling Iraq and Afghanistan with depleted uranium, which not only killed tens of thousands of children, but will leave generations with severe birth defects.

Most of those who voted for the Syria resolution in the Senate were there when Bush was in office, and so was Obama. About the only thing they did in response to Bush's far more serious war crimes, which included a war of aggression, torture, and economic plunder, was write him more blank checks to continue his good work there.

They could have stopped Bush's war crimes without firing a shot, but they did not.

Because Bush's war crimes profited the right people and Assad's don't.

[truedelphi]

51. Yes siree-bob. Instead of indicting war criminals we have in our midst,

Kerry is seeking advice from Kissinger, a monster of a man who was in the loop of decisions made regarding use of napalm in Vietnam, the strategy of bombing the dikes that the rural Vietnamese needed to be safe from floods, using defoliating agents that to this day cause birth defects and cancers among both that population and also among aging service people in this country who had been deployed there.

None of these actions were legal, or decent. In fact those actions were an outrage. These actions resulted not in 400 deaths, but in six million people left dead, wounded or homeless.

Worst of all, to my way of thinking, is the story that an aide to K. tells:
Kissinger had insisted that bombs be hammering what was a civilian occupied area of Laos. The aide informs K. that he needed to reconsider, as bombing a civilian area of villages in Laos was against the International norm and illegal according to Geneva Convention.

Henry simply smiled and told the aide not to worry about it. The aide for a moment thought it meant that Kissinger felt bad and was not going to target the same area again. But then the aide came to find out that Kissinger simply re-classified the area as a hostile area, and let further bombings proceed.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Exactly.

[99Forever]

49. Nicely put into focus.

Thank you.

[Catherina]

50. Very well done and agreed. To indent, use blockquote

but preview before you post because it automatically adds a line above and a line below the indentation that you might want to remove by deleting a space.

Rec'd