Syria updates - September 13 , 2013 - Syria scatters chemical weapons to defend assets against American missile and bombing strikes .....Russian announces plans to upgrade its presence in the Mediterranean Sea ....initial talks between the US and Russia on Syria - Geneva 2 set for September 28 , 2013.... Taking apart the Obama speech - a critical eye at what was put out there - two points of view !

John Kerry singing a different tune today - He is singing his Captain Appeasement tune !



http://rt.com/news/kerry-lavrov-syria-talks-835/

Russia, the US and the UN have agreed that the only solution to the ongoing Syrian crisis lies within the framework of the “Geneva-2” peace talks, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

After their meeting in Geneva on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, US State Secretary John Kerry and UN and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi “reaffirmed their commitment to an early launch of Syrian dialogue in Geneva between representatives of the Syrian government and main opposition groups," Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.  

The meeting between Lavrov, Kerry and Brahimi in Switzerland was focused on “practical issues” to prepare the way for an international peace conference over Syria. 

The three diplomats agreed that “a political settlement is the only possible way to an early end to violence in Syria and to overcome acute humanitarian consequences of the Syrian conflict,” the Russian Foreign ministry said. This settlement should be “based on the implementation of all provisions of the Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2012,” the statement said.

The representatives of Russia, US and UN decided to meet for trilateral talks at the next regular session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Sept. 17. Kerry said another meeting is needed to set the date for organizing the “Geneva-2” peace conference. 

Commenting earlier on Friday’s Geneva negotiations, called to establish international control over Syrian chemical weapons, Kerry said the dialogue “was constructive, it continues." 

"We are working hard to develop a common position," he said. 

Earlier Friday, the head of the UN chemical weapons inspection team, Ake Sellstrom, said that the UN report on the alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21 in Syria was complete and would be delivered to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over the weekend, AP reported. 

A damaged car is seen on the rubble of a damaged building in the Aleppo district of Salaheddine September 13, 2013.(Reuters / Muzaffar Salman)

The US is confident that the results of the report will “reaffirm that chemical weapons were used in Syria” without assigning blame on any of the conflicting sides in the Syrian civil war, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Friday. 

President Barack Obama also reiterated that any agreement on Syria's chemical weapons needs to be verifiable and enforceable. 

The talks between Russia and the US kicked off in Geneva late Thursday, with Lavrov saying a military strike was unnecessary once Damascus agreed to put its chemical weapons under international control. However, Kerry said that “words are not enough,” doubting that Assad’s government was serious in its intentions give up its chemical weapons.

The negotiations will continue on Friday night, said the spokeswoman for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

"We are staying, probably they will finalise it through the night," she told reporters in Geneva. "I am not sure about tomorrow (Saturday), but they will go through the night."

"It is a sign that we are going on, that we proceed with talking and negotiating. Now it is like a real negotiating process, they are working on some real substance," she added. 

Lavrov and Kerry plan to continue their talks in Geneva on Saturday, RIA Novosti cited a source in the Russian delegation as saying. 

UN: Syria's chemical convention application 'incomplete'

Syria “legally” became a full member of the global anti-chemical weapons treaty on Thursday, after President Bashar Assad signed a legislative decree that "declared the Syrian Arab Republic approval to accede to the convention" and that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem had written to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said Syria’s UN Ambassador Bashar Jaafari.

However the UN has said that Syria's application is not yet complete, declining to answer what information was missing. OPCW is due to consider Syria’s inquiry in the following week. 

Syria was one of only a few countries not to have joined the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. 

The alleged chemical weapons attack after which the diplomatic scramble to avert military intervention in Syria began, occurred on August 21 in Ghouta, an eastern suburb of the Syrian capital Damascus. The reported casualty figures ranged from dozens to almost 1,400 deaths. Following the incident several videos showing alleged victims of the attack emerged online. 

The incident occurred a few kilometers from the temporary quarters of the UN team of investigators which was in the country at Syria's invitation to look into several previous alleged uses of chemical weapons. 

Both sides of the ongoing Syrian conflict – the Assad government and various opposition groups – have denied their participation in the alleged chemical weapons’ attack, blaming each other. 

Military non supportive of latest War.....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-13/military-times-survey-75-troops-oppose-strikes-syria

Military Times Survey: 75% of Troops Oppose Strikes On Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/13/2013 21:47 -0400

inShare1

 

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

It’s always a good sign for an empire’s fortunes when the commander in chief of the armed forces completely loses the confidence and trust of the troops. While we have all seen various polls demonstrating the general public’s complete opposition to unprovokedmilitary aggression against Syria, I hadn’t seen a survey focused on military members until now. The results are not good for the establishment. From the Military Times:

To the list of skeptics who question the need for air strikes against Syria, add an another unlikely group — many U.S. troops.

“I haven’t heard one single person be supportive of it,” said an Army staff sergeant at Fort Hood who asked not to be identified by name.

A Military Times survey of more than 750 active-duty troops this week found service members oppose military action in Syria by a margin of about three to one.

The survey conducted online Monday and Tuesday found that about 75 percent of troops are not in favor of air strikes in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to kill civilians in that country.

A higher percentage of troops, about 80 percent, say they do not believe getting involved in the two-year-old civil war is in the U.S. national interest.

The results suggest that opposition inside the military may be more intense than among the U.S. population at large. About 64 percent of Americans oppose air strikes, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll published Monday.

Full article here.

A close look at Al Qaeda and its syrian franchise ,  al Nusra .....the islamic group the US / West / GCC is funding , arming and training - and who lusts to attack the US in return ..... What could go wrong ? 

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-09-13/head-syrian-rebels-calls-terrorist-attacks-america

Head of Syrian Rebels Calls for Terrorist Attacks On America

Submitted by George Washington on 09/13/2013 15:07 -0400

• Afghanistan
 
• Iraq
 
• Israel
 
• Reuters
 
• Saudi Arabia
 
• White House

inShare2

We knew that the Syrian rebels are mainly Al Qaeda, and that the U.S. has been supporting these terrorists for years.

And we knew that rank-and-file Syrian rebels have:

• Burned American flags

• Threatened to attack America

• Said:  “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”

• And said: “We started our holy war here and won’t finish until this [Al Qaeda] banner will be raised on top of the White House. Keep funding them, you always do that, remember? Al Qaeda for instance.”

But even we were shocked to learn that the head of the Syrian rebels is also the global boss of Al Qaeda ... and that he is calling for fresh terrorist attacks on America.

CBS News reports:

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri called has called on Muslims to continue attacking Americans on their own soil in order to "bleed" the U.S. economy.

***

"To keep up the hemorrhage in America's security and military spending, we need to keep the Unites States on a constant state of alert about where and when the next strike will blow," Zawahiri said.

Reuters noted in February 2012 that al-Zawahri is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.

But al-Zawahri has since taken control of the main Al Qaeda rebel terrorist group in Syria: al-Nusra.

Terrorism experts at the Bipartisan Center'sHomeland Security Project (co-chaired by 9/11 Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean) report(page 24):

A recent illustration of the fractured nature of the al-Qaeda network was provided during the spring of 2013 when Zawahiri [the global head of Al Qaeda] personally intervened to settle a dispute between Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Zawahiri rejected AQI’s assertion of control over al-Nusra and declared the Syrian group to be under hisdirection.

In doing so, Zawahiri was trying to assert control over two of al-Qaeda’s most virulent affiliates. AQI had mounted a series of spectacular attacks in Iraq over the past year, demonstrating that it was a force to be reckoned with.  According to the Congressional Research Service, there were some dozen days in 2012 in which AQI carried out simultaneous multicity attacks that killed hundreds of Iraqis.  And the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria is widely

acknowledged as the most effective fighting force in the war against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Let's put this in context.   Most of the Syrian “rebels” are Al Qaeda.  The U.S. government has designated these guys as terrorists.

Things are getting better, not worse:  Al Qaeda is gaining more and more power among the rebels.

And the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel  have been backing these guys for years.  Indeed, we’ve long known that most of the weapons we’re shipping to Syria are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. And they apparentlyhave chemical weapons.

We're arming the same guys who are threatening to blow us up.

This is even stupider than creating Al Qaeda in the first place to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.  At least then, they didn't threaten America while we were arming them.

Hat tip: Paul Joseph Watson.

and....


http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/09/12/nusra-front-self-sustaining-after-seizing-control-of-key-syrian-city/

Nusra Front self-sustaining after seizing control of key Syrian city

POSTED AT 7:01 PM ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

 

That’s Jabhat al-Nusra, which declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda earlier this year after the US listed it as a terrorist-network affiliate in December 2012. They are the most effective fighting force among the rebels in Syria, and one of the most insistent on imposing shari’a law on the conquered.  That includes Ash Shaddadi, McClatchy reports, which gives the Nusra Front access to enough oil and gas revenue to sustain their entire war effort:

Sitting at the edge of a vast and barren desert in Syria’s gas and oil production region, Ash Shaddadi, a city of 70,000, has become the nightmare that many fear if Syria’s radical Islamist forces triumph in this country’s civil war.

Since mid-February, the city has been under the control of the radical Islamist militia known as Jabhat al Nusra, or the Nusra Front, which has pledged allegiance to al Qaida. The spoils of conquest include much of eastern Syria’s petroleum resources: a major natural gas plant here, many oil wells in the countryside of Deir el Zour province to the south and much of the production of grains and cotton.

Nusra, which the U.S. government has branded a terrorist organization, captured Ash Shaddadi from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad with the help of the pro-Western Free Syrian Army rebels. But the better-equipped Nusra – many of its fighters veterans of battles against U.S. forces in Iraq – took the lead in the four days of fighting, capturing weapons, ammunition and government property.

Today Nusra runs the town. It controls the grain silos, the cotton warehouses, and most important the region’s gas and oil output. Yet the biggest windfall from victory may have been the proceeds from the sale of some 400 major construction vehicles, which they captured when they overran state facilities in January. The sale of the equipment netted 4 billion Syrian pounds, almost $40 million at the time, according to local Free Syrian Army commanders.

Townspeople have taken to the streets repeatedly to protest Nusra’s inability to provide basic services and its claim to piety and religious values while it seizes public property for use as it sees fit. But the protests haven’t shaken Nusra’s hold on the area, and because Nusra is self-sufficient in Ash Shaddadi, its fighters say there’s no way for outsiders to shut down support.

Be sure to read it all, especially while keeping in mind the argument that American involvement now can dictate a moderate alliance to replace Bashar al-Assad after regime change.  It didn’t take Nusra Front long to push out the “moderates,” nor to choose its next enemy in the field — and it’s not Assad:

With Assad’s forces ousted from the area, the United States is their primary foe, Nusra fighters say.

“America is our enemy. They must get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt, and they must put pressure on Israel,” said Abu al Walid, 21, a student of petroleum engineering who’s now guarding the Ash Shaddadi gas plant.

moving on to chemical weapons.....





http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/09/13/Report-Syria-scatters-chemical-weapon-stocks-across-the-country-.html

The Syrian army has been moving stockpiles of chemical weapons to as many as 50 sites in an attempt to make it difficult for U.S. forces to track them, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Thursday.

A secret Syrian military unit has been tasked to shift stocks of poison gases and munitions to various locations across the country, according to the report, which cited American and Middle Eastern officials.

Officials told the WSJ the move by “Syria's elite Unit 450 could complicate any U.S. bombing campaign in Syria over its alleged chemical attacks.”

The United States accuses the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of striking a Damascus suburb last month with poison gas.

Washington claims the Aug. 21 attack has killed some 1,400 people, including more than 400 children.

The Journal reported that the Syrian military has been moving the stocks around for months and as recently as last week, as quoted by AFP.

Starting about a year ago, the deadly weapons - traditionally kept at several sites in western Syria - began being dispersed to nearly two dozen major sites, the WSJ reported.

The unit has also started using dozens of smaller sites, the report said, with Washington now believing that the weapons have been dispersed to as many as 50 spots in the country's west, north and south, as well as new sites in the east.

Despite the redistribution, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies still believe they know where most of the weapons are situated, according to the Journal.

However, it quoted one official as saying “we know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are.”

While Washington is employing satellites to track vehicles used by the unit, the pictures do not always indicate what they are carrying, the paper reported.

President Bashar al-Assad confirmed for the first time Thursday that Syria plans to give up its chemical weapons as the United States urged him and his Russian allies to quickly make good on his promise.

http://rt.com/news/navy-warship-syria-mediterranean-800/

The Russian Navy intends to build its presence in the Mediterranean Sea - particularly in the area close to Syrian shores - to up to 10 battleships, announced Admiral of the Fleet Viktor Chirkov.

“The task is crystal clear: to avoid a slightest threat to the security of the state. This is a general practice of all fleets around the world, to be there when a tension level increases. They are all going to act on operational command plan of the offshore maritime zone,” Chirkov told journalists on Friday. "Russia will be building up its Mediterranean fleet until it is deemed sufficient to perform the task set." 

Russia began military build-up in the Mediterranean in 2012, and starting from December last year the Navy established a constant presence in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. 

On May 1, 2013 all Russian battleships operating in the area were assigned to a single task force under special offshore maritime zone operation command.

Currently there are seven warships deployed in the area: landing craft carriers 'Aleksandr Shabalin’, ‘Admiral Nevelskoy’, ‘Peresvet’, ‘Novocherkassk’ and ‘Minsk’ from Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets, as well as the escort vessel ‘Neustrashimy’, and large anti-submarine ship ‘Admiral Panteleyev’. 

According to previous reports, the missile-carrying cruiser ‘Moskva’ passed the Straits of Gibraltar on September 10 and is expected to arrive at its final destination in eastern Mediterranean on September 15 or 16. 

Two battleships of the Russia’s Black Fleet, guided missile destroyer ‘Smetlivy’ and landing craft carrier ‘Nikolay Filchenkov’ left their bases in Sevastopol and Novorossiysk respectively and early on Friday morning and passed the Bosphorus Strait, heading to the eastern Mediterranean. 

The SSV-201 reconnaissance ship ‘Priazovye’ also reportedly joined the group in the Eastern Mediterranean in early September. 

Upon the arrival of the ‘Moskva’, its commander, Sergey Tronev, will assume operative command of the task force.

Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov also informed that more than 80 Russian battleships and support vessels are currently offshore in various parts of the global ocean.

“In time of peace Navy’s duty and main application is military service, constant naval presence in the zones of military-political tension where interests of the Russian Federation are concentrated,” Chirkov said. 

Admiral Chirkov recalled that a group of ships headed by the ‘Moskva’ missile cruiser recently called into ports of Cuba and Venezuela and for the first time ever passed into the Pacific Ocean via the Panama Canal, calling into ports in Nicaragua and Panama.

Chirkov also informed that a group of 10 warships and support vessels accompanied by four nuclear icebreakers right now are training on the Northern Sea Route. This task group is headed by Russia’s most powerful battleship and the flagship of the Northern Fleet, cruiser ‘Pyotr Veliky’ (Peter the Great). 

“For the first time ever all Russia’s nuclear surface ships - heavy nuclear missile cruiser ‘Pyotr Veliky' and nuclear icebreakers ‘Yamal’, ‘Vaigach’, ‘Taimyr’ and ‘50 Let Pobedy’, were combined in to perform a joined task,” Chirkov said, adding that the icebreakers assisted the taskforce to pass the strait between the Taimyr Peninsula and the Severnaya Zemlya Archipelago, and now the group is continuing to move forward to the east, crossing the Laptev Sea.

Chirkov also mentioned that a group of battleships of the Pacific Fleet headed by the missile cruiser ‘Varyag’ is currently deployed in the southern-western Pacific performing an operational readiness exercise.

“This group will take part in international exercises of the naval forces of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and later will take part in the centenary celebration of the [Royal] Australian Navy,” said Chirkov. 

The Russian Navy also continues to battle maritime piracy, deploying task force groups off the coasts of Somalia. In 2013 two naval task groups, one from the Northern Fleet and another from the Pacific Fleet, have been protecting sea routes near the Horn of Africa.

Russian warships accompanied 19 convoys through the dangerous waters, maintaining security of 105 vessels from 27 countries and once preventing capture of a merchant vessel. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10306948/Syria-John-Kerry-says-Russia-talks-constructive.html

By Damien McElroy, Geneva

11:49AM BST 13 Sep 2013

Speaking after a joint session with Mr Lavrov and Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Special Envoy, Mr Kerry said the date for Geneva II – a much delayed peace conference on Syria – would be set at their next meeting on September 28 in New York.

The US and Russia launched negotiations last night over Syria’s chemical weapons which are expected to see the Damascus regime put its stockpile under international supervision. Russia has insisted that a pact on chemical weapons should trigger the revival of the UN-sponsored peace talks on a transitional government to end the civil war.

“We both agreed ... to meet again in New York around the time of the UN General Assembly around the 28th in order to see if it is possible then to find a date for that conference,” Mr Kerry said, adding that the outcome would ultimately “depend on the capacity to have success here ... on the subject of the chemical weapons.”

The Secretary of State said that the chemical weapons negotiations, which dominated by detailed expert level exchanges, would go on through Friday.

“We would both agree that we had constructive conversations regarding that, but those conversations are continuing,” he said.

One of the sticking points of the talks is that while the US insists the threat of military intervention must remain in place to compel the Syrian government to fully disclose and destroy its chemical weapons.

However Mr Lavrov said that an agreement in Geneva must “remove the need” for a strike.

US officials remain fearful that Bashar al-Assad’s government would renege on a deal if it does not face consequences.

“Syria needs to take immediate actions to disclose, surrender and eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile under international monitoring and verification,” said Erin Pelton, a spokesman for the US mission in Geneva. “Statements without action are wholly insufficient for a country that has had a secret, enormous chemical weapons program for decades.” Mr Lavrov said he it was important that an accord was reached quickly on chemical weapons if the diplomats were to meet the New York deadline on a peace conference.

“We agreed to meet in New York on the margins of the General Assembly and see where we are and see what the Syrian parties think about it and do about it, and we hope we would be able to be a bit more specific when we meet with you in New York.”

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, also hinted that the Geneva talks were making progress as he welcomed a decision from Damascus to join the Chemical Weapons convention. This is “an important step towards the resolution of the Syrian crisis” and added: “This confirms the serious intention of our Syrian partners to follow this path.”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/09/notes-on-obamas-exceptionally-weird-speech-on-syria.html

( a critical analysis of the Obama speech on Syria ) 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2013

Obama’s Exceptionally Weird Speech on Syria

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

“Oh, this will be easy,” I said to myself. “This speech is short!” Boy, was I wrong. I’ve always felt that exegesis saves, but now I’m experiencing a crisis of faith. Can there be bullshit so deeply impacted that it’s proof against color coding? We’ll see. But first, here’s why I thought the speech was weird:

1. The intricate verbal patterning that we’ve come to expect from Obama (Hamilton Project; inaugural; presser) isn’t present. Even at the presser, speaking extemporaneosly, Obama at least nailed his talking points.

2. The text contains several simple and obvious grammatical errors (which must have been in the text. The errors cannot be caused by improvisation, since Obama uses a Teleprompter).

3. The speech is not well-structured. Although I divided the speech into parts retroactively, transitions between parts were not signalled for listeners in any way. Some listeners were confused, and no wonder.

4. The language is slack, flaccid, filled with dead metaphors, unclear referents, and national security jargon.

From the outside, it’s impossible to know whether all these quality defects were caused by time pressure, the larger exhaustion of the American imperial project, or even Obama, Nuke LaLoosh-like, shaking off the signs and writing his own pitch. Unlikely though that may seem.

As a result, there’s far less color-coding than usual — although I could have coded the entire speech in bullshit brown and liar’s red, that would have been just a stunt. Instead, I went through the speech in detail and peppered it with note after note, as if I were a policy debater again looking for points of weakness; and there are a rather lot of notes.

However, there is one particular rhetorical trick that Obama uses several times: Synecdoche (part for whole), and the way Obama uses it is extremely deceptive, almost like sleight of hand. He’ll focus your attention on a part that represents a whole; but by focusing on the part, you can’t focus on the whole. For example (see note 3), Obama says he wants to talk about “Syria.” But Syria is but one part of a whole Syrian crisis, which includes many other players like Russia, Iran, Turkey, and so on. But Obama doesn’t want to talk about all those players, since that would entail talking about the risk of a wider war, and so he says “Syria” in place of “Syrian Crisis.” He uses this device a number of times in the speech.

So, readers, despite the fact that this post is more than a little down in the weeds, I hope you find if fun and useful. I’m not a foreign policy wonk, so your corrections and additions will be very welcome.

Oh, and the contrasts between Obama’s speech, and speeches that Maggie Thatcher, Sir Edward Grey, and FDR gave in similar circumstances are interesting, and not in Obama’s favor.

* * *

Category	Note
Secular religion	A mish-mash of phrases from the Framers, Lincoln and MLK echoes, and so forth
Bathos	Bathos is an abrupt transition in style from the exalted to the commonplace
Neo-liberal catchphrase	“Free market,” “innovation,” “hard choices” etc.
Populism	“Our most vulnerable citizens”
Bipartisan shibboleth	“The troops,” for example
Dead metaphors/cliche	“Ring the changes on,” “take up the cudgel for,” “toe the line,” “ride roughshod over,” etc. (Orwell)
Sheer nonsense	Word salad
Falsehood or truthiness	A terminological inexactitude
Equivocation	Lawyerly parsing and weasel wording
Boilerplate	“Ladies and gentleman,” and so forth.

I’ve divided the speech into parts for convenience, but the parts are not there in the original. To the transcript!

* * *

Part I: The case for war.

OBAMA: My fellow Americans,¹tonight I want to talk to you²about Syria³ – why it matters, and where we go from here.⁴

1. Nixon: “My Fellow Americans: I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.” JFK: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Gerald Ford: “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.” LBJ: “Good evening, my fellow Americans: Tonight I want to speak to you of peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.” Reagan: “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.”
2. “Talk to you” signals extreme informality. Note that Obama does not use division (“clarifying by describing a whole and its constituent parts”) or eutrepismus (“numbering and ordering the parts under consideration”). Here’s Maggie Thatcher, faced with a similar challenge of justifying war while diplomacy continues, on the Falkland Islands:

THATCHER [division] Our strategy has been based on a combination of diplomatic, military and economic pressures and I should like to deal with each of these in turn. [Eutrepismus] First of all, we seek a peaceful solution by …

In contrast to Thatcher, Obama’s lack of signposting may have contributed to the sense of confusion many listeners felt; “Obama’s speech seemed to be a patchwork of messages.” A classic technique of division, in the vernacular: “Tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you have told them.” Obama didn’t do the first, or the third. His speech seemed like a patchwork because it was. Overall, this speech exhibits aschematiston: The use of plain, unadorned or unornamented language (“notable for its conversational tone”), which some consider a vice. We can’t know whether this was a consequence of time pressure in a rapidly evolving situation, an executive decision by Obama, or a choice by his speechwriting staff.. The intricate verbal and rhetorical patterning of Obama’s earlier speeches is gone, along with Obama’s favorite speechwriter, Jon Favreau, who left the White House for Hollywood. It’s almost impossible to imagine, but could Obama have decided to write his own speech? With this result?

3. Synecodoche: A whole is represented by naming one of its parts (“wheels,” for a car). By “Syria,” Obama means “The Syrian crisis,” which includes Syria, Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Hizbollah, the Kurds, and “the Syrian opposition,” to speak only of states and non-state actors. Synecdoche, by throwing light on one part of a whole, obscures the others; it is, as we shall see, is the key rhetorical figure of the speech. Obama’s use of synecdoche is deceptive: The risks, as in (say) 1914, come from interactions between players, not from Syria alone. Obama, throwing light on Syria alone, throws this complexity into shadow.
4. Alliteration: Repetition of the same letter or sound within nearby words. For example, the single phrase “why it matters, and where we go from here” contains in little the purpose of the speech: Speaker and listener (“we”) understanding the strategery (“why”) behind intervening (“we go”) in a particular place (“where”), and the sound reinforces the sense.

OBAMA: Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition,⁵ and to shape a political settlement.⁶ But I have resisted calls for military action,⁷ because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁸

5. Maybe when Obama finds the “moderate opposition,” I’ll get my pony. Some say the Free Syrian Army are moderates, or at least secular, but I’m not sure what the baseline for “moderate” is.
6. Translation: Regime change.
7. That is, overt military action. Obama recently put in 50 CIA-trained paramilitaries. There may have been other actions before that, but of course we can’t know, since the administration conducts secret wars under secret law.
8. Ambiguous (a vice). Pivoting on the equivocal weasel word “particularly,” Obama is unclear whether we cannot resolve civil wars ever, or whether our exhausted, demoralized, and suicidal military can’t resolve civil wars at the moment. If the latter, it’s not clear how much deterrent power the administration really has; paramilitaries, mercs, and drones only take one so far.

OBAMA: The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government⁹ gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.¹⁰ The images from this massacre¹¹ are sickening: Men, women, children lying¹² 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.¹²On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared¹³ them off-limits — a crime against humanity,¹⁴ and a violation of the laws of war.¹⁵

9. Not proven. Theories include: (a) Assad did it (oddly, with UN inspectors already on his territory); (b) the rebels did it (cui bono); (c) Assad’s army did it, but there was a breakdown in the chain of command.
10. When they say it’s “for the kids,” it’s never “for the kids.”
11. And not these massacres.
12. Parallelism and a congeries (“piling up words of differing meaning but for a similar emotional effect”) of powerful verbs create pathos: “Lying… foaming… gasping… clutching… imploring”; an effective – or potentially effective, since many rhetorical effects depend on the ethos of the speaker — use of descriptio: A vivid, lively description of the consequences of an act, in this case, a gas attack. (If this seems cold to you, consider that speechwriter was just as cold.)
13. “Humanity” doesn’t “declare” anything; states and international institutions do.
14. Like torture.
15. Which would explain why we helped Saddam gas Iran. And used depleted uranium shells and white phosphorus in Iraq. Also too, Agent Orange.

OBAMA: This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust.¹⁶ Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant,¹⁷ the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them.¹⁸ And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

16. A nod to AIPAC.
17. A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen.
18. All these strictures apply to nuclear weapons; say, Israel’s. Perhaps the real reason states like the United States regard gas with such horror is that it’s relatively easy to make; even a third rank state like Syria can have a deterrent, of sorts.

OBAMA: On August 21st, these basic rules¹⁹ were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used²⁰ in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts²¹ from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

19. Obama must weasel with “rules,” and not “treaties” or “international law,” because Syria, at the time of the speech, was not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
20. Note passive lack of agency; “were used.” Odd, since above Obama insisted the Syrian government was responsible.
21. Note Obama doesn’t say how these accounts were vetted. Surely we’re not going to war on the basis that somebody somewhere tweeted something?

OBAMA: Moreover, we know²² the Assad regime²³ was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas.²⁴ They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11²⁵ neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.²⁶ We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.²⁷ We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.²⁸

22. Anaphora: Repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning of successive clauses, sentences, or lines (Obama’s favorite rhetorical figure). “We know…. We know. … We know. … We’ve also studied.” But who is “we,” and how do “we” “know”? Note that Obama gives sourcing for none of what “we” “know,” and the central document justifying Syrian war comes from the White House, not the intelligence community. Shades of Dick Cheney, and the Downing Street Memo (“the facts and the intelligence were fixed around the policy”).
23. Anything you call a “regime,” you want to change. A regime that you don’t want to change is called a “staunch ally.”
24. Verification of Obama’s timeline must wait for the forthcoming UN report, for which the UN has outsourced the technical work to a scandal-played Swedish arms dealer with Saudi connections. I suppose, at some point, somebody should read the Russian report as well.
25. “11” seems pointlessly specific. Are we sure the number isn’t 10 or 12?
26. The Médecins sans Frontières report.
27. Maybe. There seems to be rather a lot of shelling going on, though.
28. Evidence that has not been released, which, if it were clinching, it would have been.

OBAMA: When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is²⁹ prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people — to those children³⁰– is not only a violation of international law,³¹ it’s also a danger to our security.

29. Subject-verb agreement: Should be “are” not “is.”
30. As above. When they say it’s about the children …
31. Above, it was “rule.” Now, it is a “law.”

OBAMA: Let me explain why.³² If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.³³ As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.³⁴ Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.³⁵ And it could be easier³⁶ for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

32. Shift from appeal to pathos, to appeal to logos.
33. Surely there are other reasons; for example, Russian pressure.
34. Grammatical error; should “using it” not “using them” (“gas” is singular). Hasty drafting? Obama stressed?
35. The “prospect of chemical warfare” by others. In fact, Agent Orange and depleted uranium shells are “friendly fire” from the chemical warfare standpoint.
36. How many easier than grabbing them from stockpiles?

OBAMA: If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.³³ And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran — which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon,³⁴ or to take a more peaceful path.

33. “Fighting spills.” Note lack of agency. Why would it “spill”?
34. That Iran is ignoring, or would ignore, international law is a matter of dispute.

OBAMA: This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that³⁵ is why, after careful deliberation, 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.³⁶ The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

35. Anaphora: “This… This… That….”
36. “Targeted” as opposed to… What?

Part II: The pivot to diplomacy

OBAMA: That’s my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes,³⁷ I believed it was right,³⁸ in the absence of a direct or imminent³⁹ threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

37. As in Libya, for “possess” read “assert.” On constitutional democracy, see here.
38. Past tense? “Believed it was right”? Odd grammatical choice.
39. Since successive administrations have stretched the word “imminent” beyond all meaning, Obama really weakens his own case by using it here.

OBAMA: This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.⁴⁰

40. Outrageous chutzpah, especially when Obama claims, one paragraph above, that “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”

OBAMA: Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them.⁴¹ Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me⁴² — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.

41. Yet more outrageous chutzpah; Libya; drones, drones, drones. We’ve created free fire zones covering tens of thousands of square miles where death can come from the sky at random. How is this “working to end war?”
42. The ol’ ego mego.

OBAMA: It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions.⁴³ So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress, and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.

43. Apostrophe: Turning one’s speech from one audience to another. Obama begins informally (see note 2) but in his justification for war (Part I), he does not directly address “you” (the America people, and not members of the national security and political classes). Now, in Part II, he does.

OBAMA: First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

OBAMA: My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground⁴³ in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

43. A double synecdoche (see note 3). The part “boots on the ground” stands for the whole: Troops. But the part, troops, also stands for the whole, military force. So Obama’s synecdoche is doubly deceptive: First, it’s perfectly possible to “put us on a slippery slope to another war” with no “boots” on “the ground.” Ask Admiral Yamamoto. Or Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Or whoever organized the incident in the Tonkin Gulf. Second, it’s perfectly possible to start a war with no military at all; that’s what covert operations and mercenaries are for. Ask Alfred Naujocks. In each case, if we look at the part that Obama selects to represent the whole, we might accept his claim of peace; but if we look at other parts of the same whole, we will see the possibility of war.

OBAMA: Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out⁴⁴ Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point⁴⁵in simply doing a “pinprick” strike⁴⁶ in Syria.

44. That is, kill or assassinate, in this case a head of state.
45. There’s “no point” to a “pinprick,” then? Literally, these two dead metaphors contradict each other: A pin with no point could not prick. Freud, no doubt, would have a field day with this.
46. A second double synecdoche. The part, the “pinprick” (“the pointy end”) stands for the whole, the strike. The strike, a part, stands for the whole, a war. Again, we see deception. First, although Obama wants us to focus on the part, the “pinprick,” but there’s no such thing as a “pinprick” strike (which seems to have replaced “surgical strike”). Strikes are not always accurate, and there is always “collateral damage.” Ask the Chinese embassy in Serbia. Second, Obama wants us to focus on the part, the strike, as opposed to the war. But a strike is an act of war!

OBAMA: Let me make something clear⁴⁷: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.⁴⁸ Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation⁴⁹ can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force⁵⁰ — we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator⁵¹, think twice before using chemical weapons.⁵¹

47. One of Obama’s verbal tics.
48. False bravado – “doesn’t do”; you can almost hear the fist pounding the table – but about a capability the military doesn’t have? One of the many weird tone problems in this speech.
49. Really? Why not France?
50. Note the equivocation of “we”; if others – say, the opposition – could do the job for us, so “we” could avoid responsibility, would that be OK with Obama? I think it would. And if covert operatives, a plausibly deniable “we,” could do the job? Same answer.
51. Who does Obama have in mind?
52. I’m trying, and failing, to think of an example where this worked, at least when a single nation was acting unilaterally. And how do the strikes work, exactly? We can’t hit the chemical weapons directly, since that spreads poison everywhere. So do we try to hit chemical weapons units alone? If the Syrians are dispersing them – reminiscent of the neo-con claim that Saddam trucked his WMDs to Syria, but now revived in the right wing fever swamp – doesn’t that make it more likely we’ll kill civilians? And if we “target” Assad’s forces generally, not chemical weapons as such, isn’t that simply a way of shifting the balance of forces to the opposition, meaning regime change, which Obama has claimed he doesn’t want? What could go wrong?

    [H]ands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

    Of course, Tomahawks don’t have pilots. Nor do drones. But still.

OBAMA: Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.⁵³ Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalationthat would lead to his demise.⁵⁴ And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.

53. More chutzpah. If this were really true, Obama could put boots on the ground.
54. So we don’t want to overthrow Assad because then we’d be responsible, but if he retaliates, we will overthrow him, and be responsible after all? So it’s not worth a second Iraq to save all those children and punish violations of the laws of war, but it is worth a second Iraq if Assad plays tit for tat? WTF? Also too, no blowback ever!

OBAMA: Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where — as one person wrote to me — “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”

It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.⁵⁵ But al Qaeda⁵⁶ will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people — and the Syrian opposition we work with⁵⁷ — just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom.⁵⁷ And the day after any military action, wewould redouble our efforts⁵⁸ to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.⁵⁹

55. Does anybody know what an “extremist” is? Is it the same as a “terrorist”?
56. Arguably, we’ve funded them.
57. That provisional government of Syrian exiles, interviews on all the majors from their offices in London… Oh, wait. Can’t anybody here play this game? Can’t these clowns even produce a Chalabi? IIRC, Obama actually did recognize some opposition group or other as the respresentatives of the Syrian people, but they seem to have gone where the woodbine twineth.
58. That would be “redouble our hitherto entirely unsuccessful efforts.”
59. This is crazy pants, nutso, demented. Who would believe this? Monday we slap you around because you’ve been bad, and Tuesday it’s like Monday never happened? I bet that doesn’t work with Malia and Sasha – especially if they think they’re in the right – so why would it work with Assad?

OBAMA: Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”

OBAMA: I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions.⁶⁰ Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations — but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.⁶¹

60. Like drones, Libya, covert operations, and so forth.
61. Maybe. Maybe not. The UN report may tell us. Or may not.

III. The diplomatic pause

OBAMA: However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.⁶² The Assad regime has now admitted⁶³ that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

62. Many disagree with this self-serving account timeline.
63. They never denied it.

OBAMA: It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

OBAMA: I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally supportfrom allies from Europe to the Americas — from Asia to the Middle East⁶⁴– who agree on the need for action.

64. Allies who don’t want to be named.

OBAMA: Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans⁶⁵, 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 is a better place because we have borne them. ⁶⁶

65. Peroratio: The conclusion, conventionally employing appeals through pathos, and often including a summing up. Obama signals the end by returning to the beginning: “My fellow Americans.”
66. Note the exhausted flaccidity of the language: Full of dead metaphors that contradict each other. The United States is an “anchor” that “forges.” Agreements are “forged” but also “enforced.” And what on earth does “a better place” mean? Better for whom and why? Who could be persuaded by this who had not already been persuaded? (Contrast the vigor and concision of Putin’s recent Op-Ed in the Times!)

OBAMA: And so, to my friends on the right⁶⁷, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.⁶⁸ To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor.⁶⁹ For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation⁷⁰ are simply not enough.

67. Parallelism: Similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words, phrases, or clauses. “[T]o my friends on the right…. To my friends on the left”; “… reconcile … reconcile.” (Oddly, or not, Obama characterizes the right as having commitments, but the left, beliefs.)
68. Ron Paul to Warmongers: Leave Syria Alone! Ron Paul’s not on the right? Did I not get the memo?
69. A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen. PolicyMIC not on the left? Did I not get the memo?
70. Egypt.

OBAMA: Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?⁷¹

71. interrogatio (rhetorical question): A rhetorical question affirms or denies a point strongly by asking it as a question. Example: Why are you so stupid? Interrogatio is a question that uses a question to confirm or reinforce the argument one has just made. However, unlike “Why are you so stupid?”, Obama’s question is poor. The answer to “What kind of world” is, doubtless, “a bad one.” (Obama also uses “this is not a world we should accept” as a reason for war.) But that’s a rather vague reason of state. Contrast Sir Edward Grey’s use of interrogatio in (successfully) justifying the German invasion of Belguim as a casus belli for World War I:

    If France is beaten in a struggle of life and death, beaten to her knees, loses her position as a great Power, becomes subordinate to the will and power of one greater than herself… and if Belgium fell under the same dominating influence, and then Holland, and then Denmark, then would not Mr. Gladstone’s words come true, that just opposite to us there would be a common interest against the unmeasured aggrandisement of any Power?

OBAMA: Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”⁷² 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 weapons⁷³will never be used.

72. Since when was deep concern a casus belli? Contrast Obama’s mush with the vigor and clarity of FDR’s “infamy” speech:

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation. … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”

73. Who said gas was the “worst” weapon?

OBAMA: 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,⁷⁴ I believe we should act. That’s⁷⁵ what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional.⁷⁶ With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that⁷⁷ essential truth.

74. When they say it’s about the children…
75. Unclear referent. What is “that”? Acting when the risks are low and the effort is modest? Acting for children when the risks are low and the effort is modest? WTF?
76. American exceptionalism. Obama didn’t go there. No, he dinnit. Nevertheless, if you’re a liberal interventionist, the phrase will make you “a little straighter in [your] seat,” which I suppose is much the same as a tingle down your leg. Canny of Obama to put this last. After Putin took notice of it, a flamewar erupted online. How. Dare. He. And so forth.
77. What?

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

* * *

Some commenters feel that Obama’s tasking for this speech was just too complex: Justifying a war, but advocating for diplomacy. I disagree: Part of statecraft is being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, after all. Maggie Thatcher had the same task: diplomatic negotiations were continuing while a task force rushed to the Falklands, even if Thatcher pretty clearly wanted the mission to fail. Others feel that the speech was a sort of Frankenstein’s monster, stitched together from parts that never matched because Cameron! Because Putin! Because Assad on Charlie Rose! I disagree: The White House speechwriting team is supposed to be a crack operation, and hiding the seams in what they’ve sewn together is something they should be able to do.

I put the failings of this speech down to larger failings: The wheels are coming off America’s imperial project. First, because what kind of imperial power can’t put “boots on the ground”? That’s like the Brits saying “We don’t got the ships” (and Thatcher had barely enough). Second, because the American people are just plain tired of endless war, and why shouldn’t they be? Enough is enough. Obama’s speech, in every way except explicitly, captures their exhaustion.

NOTE I should say that I don’t focus on the nuts and bolts of rhetoric for my health or for fun, though for me it is fun. What I hope is that there are readers — you, readers — out there who want to master the art of persuasion, and just as (I would argue) you’ve got to learn scales and chords to play, so you have to learn the art of rhetoric to persuade. After all, that certainly as a necessary, even if not sufficient, part of the successes that Grey, FDR, Thatcher, and Obama have had in life. Eh?




War is off the table for now - but not forgotten....

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obama%E2%80%99s-humiliating-defeat

Obama’s Humiliating Defeat

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 04:33 — Glen Ford

• War Against Syria | 
• Shock and Awe | 
• Obama Syria Strike | 
• Chemical Weapons Treaty

Printer-friendly version

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

When presidents fail, it is a public spectacle. In his rush into unprovoked war against Syria, President Obama overplayed his hand. Shortly before he appeared on television on Tuesday, “Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable.” But he’ll soon be back on the warpath, meaner and more aggressive than ever.

Obama’s Humiliating Defeat

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.”

It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.

The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together. Obama, who was reluctantly asking permission from Congress to violate the most fundamental tenets of international law – permission that Congress is not empowered to give – framed Syria as a rogue nation because it has not signed a treaty on chemical weapons like “98 percent of humanity.” This makes Syria ripe for bombing. The president does not explain that Syria’s neighbors, Israel and Egypt – both U.S. allies – have also not signed the treaty. He does not suggest bombing Tel Aviv or Cairo.

“He was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria.”

Obama claims that the U.S. has proof that “Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.” Not a shred of evidence has been presented to back up this narrative – which, under the circumstances, tends to prove it is fiction. On the other hand, there are credible reports (everybody’s reports are more credible than the Americans), that rebels under U.S. allied control were told to prepare to go on the offensive following an American retaliation to a chemical attack that would be blamed on Assad’s forces – a story whose logic conforms to what actually occurred and answers the common sense question, Who profits?

Obama will not for long accept diplomatic delays in his war schedule. On Tuesday night, he was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria. “If we fail to act,” said the president, “the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” American and allied secret services will gladly arrange a replay.

Early in the speech, Obama raised the specter that, because of Assad’s mad chemical predilections, “our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Moreover, “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.” At this point, the president was arguing for a punitive strike, and had taken on the persona of warlike Obama.

Near the end of the speech, Obama responds to those who want Assad “taken out” right away and permanently, rather than merely “degrading” his forces with calibrated strikes. Now speaking as the “moderate” Obama, the president makes the case that Assad has no “interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force.”

“Assad would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.”

The two Obamas are matched with two corresponding Assads. One Assad is a menace to the whole neighborhood and to himself, while the other Assad knows who to mess with and takes no risks with his own survival.

It would seem logical that the latter Assad, who is not prone to suicidal actions, would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.

The point here is not to argue with Obama’s logic, but to show how inconsistent, opportunistic and, at times, incoherent his reasoning is. He has not the slightest interest in truth or simple logic, only in what sounds right in the immediate context. Obama mixes his personas, and those of his nemesis, at the drop of a hat, because he is shameless and absolutely cynical – as befits a mass murderer.

Barack Obama pretends to believe – at least I hope he’s only pretending – that it was his idea to wait for a congressional debate before blasting Syria to smithereens. “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress.” He didn’t take the debate to Congress; the congressional detour was forced on the White House on August 31 when it became clear that Obama lacked both domestic and foreign support for a speedy strike. That was Obama’s first big defeat. The second was a knockout, after Russia and Syria seized on Secretary of State John Kerry’s “joke” about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, at which point Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable. He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated – with a patched together script and a mouth full of crow.

“He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated.”

The president who claimed that he could bomb the sovereign nation of Libya for seven months, overthrow its government and kill its president, without triggering the War Powers Act – and, further, that no state of war exists unless Americans are killed – told his Tuesday night audience that he opposes excessive presidential power. “This is especially true,” said Obama, with a straight face, “after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

In truth, it was the likelihood of rejection by American “people’s representatives” – just as British Prime Minister Cameron’s war plans were rejected by Parliament – that derailed Obama.

It took more than 1,500 words before Obama acknowledged the existence of the real world, in which he was compelled to “postpone” a congressional vote on the use of force while the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain work on a UN resolution “requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.” Syria has already agreed to the arrangement, in principle. Obama must bear, not only the bitter burden of defeat, but the humiliation of having to pretend that the UN route was his idea, all along.

Expect him back on the war track in no time flat. What else is an imperialist to do?