“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 »
As the Russia investigation heats up, "the role of Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime New York lawyer, will be significantly reduced. Mr. Trump liked Mr. Kasowitz’s blunt, aggressive style, but he was not a natural fit in the delicate, politically charged criminal investigation. The veteran Washington defense lawyer John Dowd will take the lead in representing Mr. Trump for the Russia inquiry."
President Trump's attorneys are "actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work." They plan to argued that Mueller is going outside the scope of his investigation, in inquiring into Trump's finances. They're also playing small ball, highlighting "donations to Democrats by some of" Mueller's team, and "an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011." Trump is said to be incensed that Mueller may see his tax returns, and has been asking about his power to pardon his family members.
In addition to ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Robert Mueller's team is also "examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. The investigation also has absorbed a money-laundering probe begun by federal prosecutors in New York into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is "is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates", including "Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008."
"A Senate bill to gut Obamacare would increase the number of uninsured people by 32 million and double premiums on Obamacare's exchanges by 2026, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The analysis is of a bill that passed Congress in 2015 that would repeal Obamacare's taxes and some of the mandates. Republicans intend to leave Obamacare in place for two years while a replacement is crafted and implemented."