President Obama's full Syria speech

Summary

In this address, the President speaks on the crisis in Syria, focusing on the horrific chemical weapons attack by Bashar al-Assad's regime that killed over 1,000 people. Highlighting the global prohibition of chemical weapons, the President stresses the importance of holding Assad accountable. He emphasizes that a targeted military strike is necessary to deter further use of chemical weapons, while also pursuing diplomatic efforts through talks with Russia. The address urges Congress and the American people to act in defense of human rights and international law, ensuring a safer world for future generations.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Syrian conflict, which began as peaceful protests, escalated into a brutal civil war, causing over 100,000 deaths and millions of refugees.
• 😀 The Assad regime's use of chemical weapons on August 21st killed over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children, prompting global outrage.
• 😀 Chemical weapons are banned under international law due to their indiscriminate and devastating effects, as seen in World War I and the Holocaust.
• 😀 The U.S. has resisted military action in Syria for years, but the use of chemical weapons changed the calculus and warranted a response.
• 😀 The Assad regime's actions violate international law and pose a security threat to global peace, especially with the potential spread of chemical weapons.
• 😀 A failure to act could embolden other tyrants, including Iran, and increase the likelihood of terrorist organizations acquiring chemical weapons.
• 😀 The President believes that military action is necessary to prevent further use of chemical weapons but stresses that it should be targeted and limited.
• 😀 The U.S. has worked with international allies to provide support to Syrian opposition forces, but the focus remains on a political settlement in Syria.
• 😀 Despite his authority, the President sought Congressional approval for military action, emphasizing the strength of democracy and cooperation with lawmakers.
• 😀 The President reassured the public that no American boots on the ground would be involved, and the action would not resemble prolonged conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan.
• 😀 Efforts toward diplomacy are ongoing, including talks with Russia to secure the removal of Syria's chemical weapons, which may prevent military action if successful.

Q & A

What event triggered the change in the U.S. stance on Syria's civil war?

The event that triggered the change in the U.S. stance was the chemical weapons attack by Bashar al-Assad's regime on August 21st, which killed over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.

Why does the speaker emphasize the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

The speaker emphasizes the use of chemical weapons because they are a violation of international law and a crime against humanity. The use of these weapons has a devastating, indiscriminate effect, making them unacceptable globally.

What historical context does the speaker provide regarding the use of chemical weapons?

The speaker refers to the use of chemical weapons during World War I and II, highlighting the horrific impact they had on soldiers and civilians. These events contributed to the global movement to ban such weapons, leading to the 1997 international agreement.

How does the speaker justify a potential military strike against Syria?

The speaker justifies a military strike by stating it is necessary to deter Assad's regime from using chemical weapons again, to maintain global prohibitions on such weapons, and to protect national and international security.

Why does the speaker choose to consult Congress before taking military action?

The speaker believes that the U.S. democracy is stronger when the President works with Congress, especially after years of increasing war powers in the executive branch. The speaker values shared decision-making on military actions.

How does the speaker address concerns about the U.S. being involved in another war?

The speaker assures that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed in Syria, and the action would be limited to a targeted strike with clear objectives, unlike prolonged engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan.

What is the speaker's response to concerns about the effectiveness of a limited military strike?

The speaker clarifies that even a limited strike would send a powerful message to Assad and other potential dictators about the consequences of using chemical weapons. A targeted strike is not meant to remove Assad but to deter future use of chemical weapons.

How does the speaker address the risk of retaliation from Syria or its allies?

The speaker downplays the risk of serious retaliation from Assad’s regime, stating that they lack the military capability to seriously threaten U.S. forces, and any retaliation would not be more dangerous than other daily threats the U.S. faces.

What are the broader international implications of failing to act against Syria’s chemical weapon use?

Failing to act could embolden other tyrants to use chemical weapons, weaken international prohibitions, and make it easier for terrorist groups to obtain these weapons. It could also threaten regional allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

How does the speaker propose to address the situation diplomatically?

The speaker is exploring diplomatic avenues by working with Russia to push Assad to give up chemical weapons, hoping for a negotiated solution that would remove the threat of chemical weapons without resorting to military force.