As usual, President Barack Obama began his September 10th speech with the familiar line – “My fellow Americans,” – but it seems that Americans are beginning to wonder how Obama can possibly be one of them after advocating such an unpopular response to the recent situation in Syria.
After Syria’s August 21st usage of banned chemical gas against its own people, the United States has been abuzz with talk of potential retaliation. President Obama has taken the issue very seriously and has come to the conclusion that the U.S. must launch a targeted military strike against Syria that he hopes will send a strong message about the lack of toleration for chemical weapons, all without placing any American boots on the ground.
Of course, war-tired Americans have strongly opposed this decision in light of past events in Iraq and Iran. Ultimately, it will be up to Congress whether or not to attack Syria, but Obama was nevertheless careful to address the public’s concerns in his speech on the matter. With emphasis on the atrocity of chemical weapons and their effect on the people and children of the country, Obama stressed that although his aim is not to start a war or even get involved in Syria, the U.S. must make its position on chemical weapons clear.
He did his best to address the most common concerns of the people. In response to the claim that a military strike would put his country on a slippery slope to another war, he assured that no boots would be on the ground and no long-term or open-ended campaigns would be pursued, adding that the chance of Syrian retaliation is small due to the fear of their dictator Bashar al-Assad’s displacement. Obama promised that an attack would be worthwhile, for even a small American strike would make a heavy impact, and stressed that we must not be bystanders to such atrocities as chemical weapons.
“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security,” said Obama. “This has meant doing more than forging international agreements – it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”
However, the President also noted that, in light of recent negotiations with Syrian ally Russia, the possibility of a diplomatic solution is increasingly real. Obama has been working with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to persuade Syria to relinquish their chemical weapons and ultimately destroy them. As a result, the Congressional vote on the military strike has been postponed in order to allow diplomatic efforts to continue.
Despite these developments, there are still many questions to be answered. Americans were still largely unconvinced of the need for military action after the speech and protested in a variety of ways. Many argued that President Obama is hypocritical for intervening in Syria after his support of the usage of unmanned drones in combat, or that it is counter-intuitive to respond to the harm of Syrian people by potentially harming more Syrian people with a military strike. Others wonder whether another war can realistically be avoided.
“What you’re seeing from veterans, from all sides, is that we understand that at times war is necessary to fight in the defense of our country,” said Hawaiian Representative Tulsi Gabbard in a Washington Post interview. “This is not one of those instances.”
The public is divided on this momentous issue, and there is little more that the President can do to convince them of the soundness of his position. Over the coming few days, Obama and his fellow Americans alike will have to wait and see how Syria responds to diplomacy, but in the meantime the President’s speech will certainly attract some heated responses itself.