Seven key points from Obama's Isis speech and what they actually mean
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-speech-problems-key-points-mean Version 0 of 1. On Wednesday night, Barack Obama delivered a speech filled with euphemisms, questionable statements, caveats, omissions and even the occasional truth. Spencer Ackerman combed over and annotated the Isis speech in full, to serve as a reader’s guide to the fine print. Here are the seven key takeaways that underline exactly how Obama’s Isis address falls down on too many fronts. On Isis as a threat What Obama said: “At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is Isil.” What it really means: Strange that Obama didn’t attempt to argue that Isis is the greatest of those threats. (Not like any other jihadist entity has conquered territory home to some six to eight million people.) If they’re one threat amongst many, why go to war against them? On Isis as a threat on the homeland What Obama said: “While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, Isil leaders have threatened America and our allies.” What it really means: So Isis isn’t an imminent threat to the US, something the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center have conceded in recent days. The Americans at risk from Isis are the ones in Iraq at Obama’s orders, risking the outcome they have been sent to prevent. Isis appears overwhelmingly interested in building what it claims is its state in Iraq and Syria, not exporting terrorism. All this makes the current war a preventive one, which international law tends to consider illegal and illegitimate without United Nations sanction, regardless of the venality of the foe or the assemblage of the coalition of nations against it. On US objectives What Obama said:“Our objective is clear: we will degrade and ultimately destroy Isil through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.” What it really means: Alas, it’s not a clear objective. It depends on where you put the emphasis – degrading or destroying. Obama has phrased missions like this before to avoid over-promising: famously, with his 2009 “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” objective against al-Qaida. How does the US know when its job is finished? Will Isis still exist in some diminished form at its end? Will Isis hold any territory at all? How “ultimately” is ultimately, and will that “ultimate” destruction occur before or after the US stops lobbing missiles? And so forth. On air strikes in Syria What Obama said: “That means I will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria, as well as Iraq.” What it really means: Big question: who will spot US missile strikes in Syria if there won’t be US troops there? The CIA? Syrian opposition groups? Additionally, Syria strikes are likely to take some time to occur, as intelligence necessary for targeting matures. On involving Congress What Obama said:“Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters” What it really means: Specifically, Obama is asking for $500m, and it’s notable that he’s not telling the American public anything in this speech about the cost of this latest war. Also on involving Congress What Obama said:“But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome Congressional support for this effort to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” What it really means: Notice how Obama has framed congressional support as optional, an inversion of constitutional obligation. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, has declared that he has all the authority he needs – within Iraq, at least; he wants Congress to authorise and fund US military training of Syrian rebels - yet the wellspring of that authority is a 2001 authorisation against al-Qaida, and Isis is no longer part of al-Qaida. “Extremely implausible”, wrote the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes. On international support What Obama said: “And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community.” What it really means: Obama didn’t commit to seeking a United Nations resolution to bless Iraq War III itself. On Yemen and Somalia What Obama said:“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one we have consistently and successfully pursed in]Yemen and Somalia for years.” What it really means: Very few people who are not part of the administration consider either of those cases a success. Less subjectively, neither has finished, years later, and it is unclear what success in Yemen and Somalia even is. Obama: “May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America” And with those 14 words, Obama inaugurated the Third Iraq War, after winning the presidency on a pledge to end the Second. |