Anthropological Analysis of Obamas Speech on Syria - Case Study Example

Anthropological Analysis of Obama’s Speech on Syria Introduction In a fight for supremacy and subsequent public opinion, people utilize an array of methods to win. Traditional tools used to win a fight in its original sense include knives, spears, swords, and, more recently guns in the human quest to overthrow and defeat rivals (Shafie 48). Other methods also include competitions and sports, in which the fight is held under specific rules with competitors out to win first place and/or a prize. However, people also win in imaginary fights by the appropriate selection and use of language. As a whole, human speech can become an instrument with which man could fulfill various purposes. Speech, in essence, is the main distinguishing element between man and other beings and, although it is possible for animals to utilize signs and sounds in conveying information, only man has the ability to combine different coded messages (Shafie 48). This is dependent on their knowledge of these codes or languages and how to use them convincingly to convey information. Therefore, in order to comprehend the real meaning of human speech, it is important to decode the main aim of the speech by understanding its different use of language (Shafie 51). This is especially essential in analyzing and understanding political speeches since the exact choice of expressions and words is meant to influence the political audience. In a battle for opinion over policy, it is possible for a politician to use the correct choice of expressions and words to influence the opinion of his audience (Shafie 51) and, in effect, win the political fight. This case study will explore the manner in which political speeches attempt to influence and persuade audiences, making them consider the politicians speech as the correct position. The work will trace phrases, words, and expressions used by US President Barrack Obama to convince his audience during his national address about the course of action adopted by the US in the Syrian chemical weapons attack crisis. Scene, People Involved, Situation, and Context of the Speech on Syria On the eve of the September 11th anniversary in 2013, US President Barrack Obama addressed the American people in a 15-minute speech, in which he sought to persuade his audience, including the American people and their representatives that the US needed to launch a strike against Syria. The President delivered the national address at the White House in the East Room at 9PM ET in relation to the Syrian chemical weapons attack Crisis. The address was meant to explain his executive decision that, in response to President Bashar Al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, the US needed to respond with targeted strikes against select installations of the Syrian government (West 21). He used the speech to lay out the administration’s reasons for asking the US Congress to authorize military force, while also seeking to address the potential diplomatic breakthrough that his government’s policy was pursuing. Prior to making this speech, there was much confusions and speculation the American media and in Congress about what to do about the matter. One of the key points in the lead up to the speech was that the administration had decided on a precise military attack on Syria (West 21), which needed to be linked to disabling the Syrian government’s ability to attack its citizens with chemical weapons. Therefore, in addressing an American public that had shown war-weariness in various diverse opinion polls, it was essential for Obama to emphasize that whatever action was taken, it would not involve a military invasion (West 22). The words “no boots on the ground” had been used extensively before this speech in American media and Congress, which meant that Obama needed to assure the American people that his policy did not include provisions for a military invasion. As the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces, Obama’s explanation and personal stance of the response necessitated by the breach of international law in Syria was the most authoritative opinion the American people could get. The killing of over one thousand civilians, using the lethal sarin gas, commanded global attention and the President seemed to have rare bipartisan support, on the need for a response to the Syrian regime by the US as the leader of the free world (West 22). His purpose in giving this speech, therefore, was to justify to the US public his intent to carry out military action in order to prevent any further gross violation of human rights and international law in Syria (West 23). However, with the US weary after two draining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to, the major backlash that occurred after the Invasion of Iraq in 2003, convincing a public already wary of their politicians about foreign military intervention was going to be difficult. This was the situation facing Obama before this speech; a national media and Congress that agreed on the need for a response and a national audience tired of questionable reasons for military intervention. With a public skeptical of war, Obama faced the task of convincing them that military action was necessary but that his administration was aware of mistakes made in the past (West 23). Methodology The gist of the argument in Allan Greenblatt’s article, “Obama’s Speech on Syria May Fail to Sway Doubters” will be the starting point of this analysis. This is because it begins on the premise that Obama’s main aim in giving the speech on Syria was to convince a public that had its doubts, concerning a strike on Syria (Greenblatt 1). As a case study design, this analysis will seek to understand how Obama interacts with his audience by using words and expressions, both verbal and non-verbal, in order to convince the audience to back military action on Syria. A case study design in researching this issue will allow for an in-depth study of Obama’s use of interactive speech, specifically in narrowing down the expansive speech to his use of language and expressions. The approach will help in understanding the complexities of President Obama’s speech through a contextual analysis of a limited number of conditions, as well as how they relate. By using Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, which postulates that people need cognitive consistency without which they are psychologically uncomfortable and resort doubts and illusions to provide immediate solutions (Bhatia 204). Information will be collected that shows Obama’s attempt to offer the public cognitive consistency through use of language in his speech. Problematization of role as Observer A fundamental question still remains about how such an analysis of political discourse can be undertaken correctly, as well as what the investigation’s focus would be. It is critical to keep in mind, on top of analyzing the wording of President Obama’s speech; it is also necessary to examine the structure of deeper and internal communication. As an observer, it is important to remember that, although the language used in political speech is clearly uttered, the speech’s political goals are more effectively achieved through acts that are not particularly articulated (Hart et al 33). Again, the problem of interpreting what the politician says and what they imply arises. In interpreting a political speech, the correct meaning of what is uttered is important because the use of indirect discursive elements and deniable phrases by a political speaker offers him more options from which the audience will choose to understand and interpret the speech. This indirectness leads to additional complexities during the analysis of political discourse. However, this indirectness is fundamental to comprehending the discourse’s cohesion correctly. It is up to an observer to examine and judge the extent to which the situation is manipulated using techniques to present different versions of the truth depending on the audience and event (Hart et al 35). In addition, the risk of unconscious and conscious bias always lurks, which requires the observer to pay attention to the language devices used to influence their attitude and to guard against it. Discussion President Obama is a renowned and skilled orator, especially with regards to his excellent ability as a rhetorician. In this speech, he uses pathos as a way to appeal to American family men and women, particularly when he says, “The images from this massacre are sickening: children, women, and men in rows on the ground after death by poison gas…A father holding onto his dead children as he implores them to stand and walk” (Obama 1). In saying these words while looking straight at the camera, Obama was trying to create a pitiful analogy of the situation for ordinary Syrian families to ordinary American families watching. Going on, to rhetorically ask what type of world it would be to live, whereby the USA witnessed a tyrant brazenly go against international law by using poison gas, while Americans chose not to acknowledge it and act on it. Moving on from addressing American family-people, Obama widens his audience appeal to those who believe in the values America stands for. Assuming that he has already grabbed the attention of skeptical American members of public, this prepares the ground for him to try and achieve his goal of convincing them by making a powerful claim for his intended actions to intervene militarily in Syria (Abraham 54). He could now embark on persuading the American public to back his plan by providing sufficient reasons. His most important one was that the chemical attacks on civilians had broken internationally agreed rules and regulations and that Americans, as a major part of the making of these regulations, must make Syria pay. However, it would also be possible to claim that this was not an effective warrant, especially given the many violations of international law, of which the US government has also abetted (Abraham 55). President Obama’s case for action in Syria is meant to cover up for most of these contradictions, which came to light as the Syrian debate wore on in the media and Congressional statements (Abraham 55). Slowly, one can claim, President Obama had slowly been losing his ethos appeal to the US public. Most people believed, even prior top the speech, that the reason for giving it was in order to clarify details of the proposed military intervention, while also giving persuasive and clear reasoning as to why an attack on Syria was of utmost necessity. However, Obama uses the same speech to make a case for his decision to intervene in Syria and the need for diplomatic breakthrough with Syria and Russia. In the beginning of the speech, Obama contends, “…these basic rules were violated, as was our sense of humanity” (Obama 1). This is meant to stress on the urgency and importance of quick action through a military strike that would avoid the occurrence of any further chemical attacks on civilians in Syria or anywhere else in the world. However, Obama also proposes another way for the crisis to be settled, thus giving the American people a sense that the military strike will only be carried out if there is not other way to end the crisis. He does this at the end of his speech, where he claims, “However…we have seen some encouraging signs…the Russian government has indicated it is willing to work with the international community by pushing President Assad to surrender his chemical weapons” (Obama 1). This is meant to convince the skeptical public that Syria and Russia could possibly come to a peaceful agreement to hand their chemical weapons to the UN. Using this development, he tells the American people that his proposal for a military strike will be suspended for the negotiations to pan out. However, he is careful to link any failure on the part of negotiations to the inescapable need for military action. The President does this by invoking the words of WWII President, Franklin Roosevelt, saying that the determination of Americans to avoid foreign entanglements and wars must never prevent America from being deeply concerned when there is a challenge to their long held principles and ideals (Obama 1). Following from his earlier admission that any strike would be dependent on the success or failure of a negotiated settlement, Obama is attempting to charm the emotional side of the American public; that their actions in WWII were necessary after the pacification of Hitler failed. The speech made it clear that, on US action on Syria, domestic and international debate would continue, rather than making it absolutely clear that he will order a military strike on Syria (Thomas 136). While it would have been anticipated that the President would await the outcome of the attempts at a negotiated settlement, he still wants to make it clear that military action is on the table if negotiations fail. He is seeking to pacify an already war weary public that this will only be a last resort. As usual, he seeks to identify with his audience by addressing them as “my fellow Americans” (Obama 1). He is also quick to state the objectives of his speech from the beginning, stating “I want to talk to you about Syria…why it is of importance and where America goes from here” (Obama 1). Since he is the Commander-in-Chief and President of the US, as well as the fact that he is delivering this speech from the East Room of the White House, he appeals to the logos, as he is the highest placed leader and global representative of the US. The President continues to explain to his audience about what has happened in Syria in graphic detail. He begins by appealing to the audience to view the Syrian people as wanting nothing more than American people want, to be free by holding “peaceful protests against Bashar Al-Assad’s repressive regime” (Obama 1). He mentions several words to persuade his audience to support a military intervention in foreign lands, including “brutal”, “repressive”, and “brutal civil war”. He is also quick to quote the largest known estimates of casualties in Syria, claiming, “over one hundred Syrians have been killed…millions more have fled to neighboring countries” (Obama 1). Although the legitimacy of the casualty numbers cannot be determined in the current situation, they make a significant contribution as a rhetorical device since they demonstrate the Assad regime’s devastation of the Syrian society in recent times, appealing to the audience using pathos. President Obama is also quick to mention the aid the US has given to Syria in terms of humanitarian assistance, while also being careful to mention his past resistance to the use of military force as an option. For instance, he mentions that the United States cannot resolve a civil war started by someone else using force, particularly in light of the decade-long interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama 1). Taking into consideration the significant investment for military intervention in the two countries, as well as the high number of American casualties, president Obama is trying to connect with his audience’s concerns. He does this by showing that he understands the taxing effects on the American people from these interventions. He also does not fail to recognize that he promised the American people to get them out of war, rather than involving them in more conflicts. These sentiments are meant to infuse his speech with validity as he is not a warmonger, despite his plea for American support to attack Syria. By using imagery of dying children and women, he makes the situation more real for his audience. Through appealing to the empathy of their audience, politicians, including Obama, are able to get support for actions that will impact on their lives as well (Thomas 137). Probably most importantly, President Obama seeks to influence the opinions of American military veterans and their families in showing why military action may be impossible to avoid. He remarks that chemical weapons, which were used against American soldiers in WWI, are a tragedy and it is “why majority of humanity has chosen to declare them off-limits... (Since their use is) a crime against humanity and violates the regulations and rules of war” (Obama 1). His remarks address the fact that the US has already been a victim of these weapons as they were used to attack US GIs during WWI in the trenches of Europe. What is interesting is the manner in which President Obama uses examples that Americans can easily identify with, especially those that are symbolic of monumental historical moments in America and the world. This probably influences most of the audience and appeals to their emotions. Obama is also careful to acknowledge the overwhelming approval given by the US Senate to an international agreement that banned chemical weapons use together with 189 other governments, which represented close to 98% of the world (Obama 1). This is an attempt to appeal to his audience that the vast majority of nations agree with America’s position on the matter. Finally, giving this speech on the eve of commemorations of the 9/11 terrorist attack anniversary was also an attempt by president Obama to capitalize on anti-terror sentiment among his audience. He contends “it may now be easier for a terrorist group to obtain these weapons and to direct them against civilians” (Obama 1). According to Obama, most of these acts of terror are committed under the assumption that the rest of the world will not take notice, which he implores the American people not to do since they are already targets and victims of such acts. Therefore, he seeks to convince his audience that failure to act decisively could show weakness on the part of the US and make them vulnerable to chemical attacks from terrorist organizations operating within Syria (Thomas 139). By mentioning subversives and terrorist organizations at a time when the US was preparing to commemorate its darkest day at the hands of terrorists, President Obama is making a strong emotional plea to the public. Conclusion President Obama, ever since his speech at the Democratic Party Convention in 2006, has always sought to influence public opinion through oratorical means. In this case, he is determined to convince the American people that action on Syria is a must after the regime used chemical weapons on its own people. However, he is seeking to do this against a backdrop of suspicion and skepticism about war from a war-weary American audience. Thus, it is imperative that he makes his case for military action, which he does using abundant rhetoric that makes his speech difficult to analyze, although its effectiveness will only be use clear when the negotiated settlement is completed. This analysis can also be useful in analyzing the way in which Obama is trying to appeal to Americans regarding a situation with another of Russia’s allies, Ukraine. Works Cited Abraham, Matthew. The Making of Barrack Obama: The Politics of Persuasion. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press, 2014. Print. Bhatia, A. "Discursive Illusions in the American National Strategy for Combating Terrorism." Journal of Language and Politics. 7.2 (2008): 201-227. Print. Greenblatt, Alan. Obama’s Speech on Syria May Fail to Sway Doubters. 10 September 2013. Web. 1 April 2014 . Hart, Roderick. Childers, Jay. & Lind, Colene. Political Tone: How Leaders Talk and Why. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. Print. Obama, Barrack. Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria. 10 September 2013. Web. 1 April 2014 . Shafie, David M. Presidential Administration and the Environment: Executive Leadership in the Age of Gridlock. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print. Thomas, C E. "The Most Transparent Administration in History?" Public Integrity. 15.2 (2013): 133-148. Print. West, John. "The Unbelievably Small Syria Strategy Vladimir Putin Exploits President Obamas Fecklessness." National Review Bristol Connecticut Then New York. 65.18 (2013): 18-29. Print. Read More