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

Abby Ohlheiser, Atlantic Wire
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 »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×