Obama Pledges to Consider Syria Plan, While Keeping Threat of a Strike

Abby Ohlheiser, Atlantic Wire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Abby Ohlheiser, Atlantic Wire
Sept. 10, 2013, 7:02 p.m.

“To­night I want to talk to you about Syr­ia, why it mat­ters, and where do we go from here,” Pres­id­ent Obama told the na­tion in a prime time speech on Tues­day night, where he an­nounced that the U.S. will con­tin­ue to pur­sue con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion for a mil­it­ary strike while, at the same time, pur­su­ing a new dip­lo­mat­ic path opened up on Monday by Rus­sia. On Tues­day, that plan be­came slightly more com­plic­ated to im­ple­ment as the de­tails emerged on what the Rus­si­ans would, and wouldn’t sup­port in or­der to avoid a strike on the coun­try. One agreed upon de­tail: Syr­ia giv­ing up its chem­ic­al weapons to in­ter­na­tion­al con­trol. But Rus­sia and Syr­ia would also like the U.S. to take the op­tion of a strike off the table en­tirely

Nev­er­the­less, that op­tion has changed the nar­rat­ive of what seemed like an in­ev­it­able mil­it­ary strike on Syr­ia, at least for now. “Over the last few days we’ve seen some en­cour­aging signs, in part be­cause of the” threat of mil­it­ary strikes,” Obama said. “The As­sad re­gime has now ad­mit­ted that they had these chem­ic­al weapons,” he said, adding that any agree­ment between Syr­ia and the world to stop a mil­it­ary strike would in­volve veri­fy­ing As­sad’s com­mit­ment to hand over his weapons. 

“We’ll also give U.N. in­spect­ors an op­por­tun­ity” to re­port their find­ings on their chem­ic­al weapons in­spec­tion in Syr­ia, Obama said, adding, “I’ve ordered our mil­it­ary to main­tain our cur­rent pos­ture,” in case the dip­lo­mat­ic path doesn’t work out. He re­it­er­ated his com­mit­ment to a mil­it­ary strike, should a dip­lo­mat­ic solu­tion fail: “I de­term­ined that it is in the na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests of the United States to re­spond to the As­sad re­gime’s use of chem­ic­al weapons through a tar­geted mil­it­ary strike…That’s my judg­ment as com­mand­er in chief.” 

With that in mind, the pres­id­ent at­temp­ted to con­vince the pub­lic of the na­tion­al se­cur­ity threat faced by the coun­try should the U.S. not re­tali­ate:

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 and us­ing them. 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 to use them to at­tack ci­vil­ians.
If fight­ing spills bey­ond Syr­ia’s bor­ders, these weapons could threaten al­lies like Tur­key, Jordan and Is­rael.

Obama also sought to an­swer a series of ques­tions posed by the Amer­ic­an pub­lic about pos­sible mil­it­ary ac­tion, which again, was very much not off the table in Obama’s speech. “After the ter­rible toll of Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan,” Obama said he knew new mil­it­ary ac­tion would be un­pop­u­lar. “It’s no won­der, then, that you’re ask­ing hard ques­tions.”

“First, many of you have asked, won’t this put you on a slip­pery slope to­wards more war,” Obama said. His an­swer? “I will not put Amer­ic­an boots on the ground in Syr­ia. … I will not pur­sue a pro­longed air cam­paign like Libya or Kosovo.”

Second, Obama asked, is it worth act­ing if we don’t “take out As­sad?” His an­swer: “Let me make something clear. The United States mil­it­ary doesn’t do pin­pricks,” ar­guing that any strike would send a mes­sage, even if it’s the lim­ited ac­tion pro­posed by his ad­min­is­tra­tion. 

Third, he asked, can the at­tacks lead to a re­tali­ation? His an­swer: “The As­sad re­gime does not have the abil­ity to ser­i­ously threaten our mil­it­ary,” Obama said.

Fourth, the pres­id­ent asked, why should the U.S. get in­volved in an already chaot­ic situ­ation? His an­swer, es­sen­tially, was that not get­ting in­volved cer­tainly wouldn’t help, either. He said, “Al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaot­ic Syr­ia” if em­boldened by As­sad’s abil­ity to con­tin­ue to use chem­ic­al weapons.

Obama re­ferred again to the im­ages of the Aug. 21 chem­ic­al at­tack, adding that the at­tack “pro­foundly changed” his pre­vi­ous “res­ist­ance” to mil­it­ary ac­tion against Syr­ia. Speak­ing of the “sick­en­ing” im­ages of chil­dren, men, wo­men dead from the gas. Obama ad­ded that “on that ter­rible night” we saw “the ter­rible nature of chem­ic­al weapons.”

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. On that ter­rible night, the world saw in grue­some de­tail the ter­rible nature of chem­ic­al weapons and why the over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of hu­man­ity has de­clared them off lim­its, a crime against hu­man­ity and a vi­ol­a­tion of the laws of war.

In that light, the pres­id­ent touched on the idea of Amer­ic­an Ex­cep­tion­al­ism is his pitch to the U.S. on the coun­try’s role in the Syr­i­an con­flict: 

My fel­low Amer­ic­ans, for nearly sev­en dec­ades the United States has been the an­chor of glob­al se­cur­ity. This has meant do­ing more than for­ging in­ter­na­tion­al agree­ments. It has meant en­for­cing them. The bur­dens of lead­er­ship are of­ten heavy, but the world’s a bet­ter place be­cause we have borne them… …Our ideals and prin­ciples, as well as our na­tion­al se­cur­ity, are at stake in Syr­ia, along with our lead­er­ship of a world where we seek to en­sure that the worst weapons will nev­er be used. Amer­ica is not the world’s po­lice­man. Ter­rible things hap­pen across the globe, and it is bey­ond our means to right every wrong. But when, with mod­est ef­fort and risk, we can stop chil­dren from be­ing gassed to death and thereby make our own chil­dren safer over the long run, I be­lieve we should act. That’s what makes Amer­ica dif­fer­ent. That’s what makes us ex­cep­tion­al.

Here’s the full tran­script, via the Wash­ing­ton Post.

Re­prin­ted with per­mis­sion from the At­lantic Wire. The ori­gin­al story can be found here.

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
22 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×