TOW #1 (Obama's Syria Speech)

On September 10th, President Barack Obama delivered a speech concerning the impending crisis in Syria, during which he explained the current situation, his personal stance on the issue, and how the United States may respond. Obama is the current president of the United States, and therefore acts as the Commander-in-Chief for all military affairs. He was moved to address the American public after the authoritarian Syrian government released sarin gas (a lethal chemical) in several villages containing alleged government resistance. The attack killed over 100,000 individuals, and, according to Obama, requires immediate global attention.  Therefore, his purpose is to justify his initial intent of military action, planned to prevent future chemical warfare with the United States, for the American public. In order to do so, Barack Obama delivered the entire speech in his typical calm, slow style. The speech was easily understood and well-divided for audience reflection. He made use of an appalled, but authoritative tone when describing the Syrian massacre. This utilization of pathos was evident throughout the speech, as he consistently emphasized that the victims included children. There will be far more victims if the US does not intervene, according to Obama, because other dictators and tyrants "will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them." His proposed thought experiment effectively calls upon the fear of foreign terrorism, helping to justify American reaction. Obama does address his opposition, citing letters written to him that questions his intentions in involvement in Syria. His speech was then organized as a series of questions and his responses, an effective technique to give the impression that he is speaking directly to each member of his audience. However, there are serious flaws with Obama's approach. The first is that he often contradicts himself. He states that an American strike is "in the national security interests of the United States", but then later says he made his decision "in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security." Also, Obama consistently referred to the American assault as a "targeted military strike," and never outline what it this entailed (which is understandable, because of its confidentiality) or how much of an impact it would have on American citizens or the military budget. Because of this vague nature and Obama's uncertainty, I do not think he effectively justified American military action in Syria.