The ISIS Crisis (heh, that rhymed)

All in all, I thought Obama's speech was really effective.Of course, the speech begins with the typical imagery - American pin, American flag, the corner of an eagle at one side, and other subtle additions of red, white, and blue. After a harsh introduction to the situation, which includes some pretty graphic descriptions of ISIS and all the awful things they've done, Obama gets straight to the point - saying specifically what needs to be done and the exact steps that he wants to take to get it done. It's actually a very smart speech delivering tactic - everyone is sick of the empty promises and vague solutions many politicians give us so often, so that specificity really gives us a sense of satisfaction. People like having things told to them straight - it makes us feel like we really have a grasp of what's going on.

Of course, Obama does use some convincing language when talking about the steps he wants to take. He talks about how these strikes have "helped save the lives of thousands of men and women." Have they? I don't doubt it, personally. Is there any way to know for sure that they did? Of course not. Does it matter? No - what matters is not the actual statistics, but that they work. The usage of the vague near-hyperbole here is an excellent way to give us a sense of what these air strikes do in a very direct way: air strikes = lives saved.

Something else caught my attention. Of course, in the areas of ISIS's influence, the dominant religion is Islam. Our country has a bit of a complicated relationship with Islam, going back 13 years to the catastrophe at the world trade center. It goes without saying that many, many people in this country have no negative feelings towards Muslims as a religious group, and many people in this country are Muslim themselves - but many people personally blame all Muslims for the acts of specific terrorist groups. Even people who don't actively spit on hijab wearers in the street may still have internalized ideologies about Muslims being foreigners or terrorists or "evil" in some way, whether they realize it or not. The fact is, a good percentage of this country does not have a very good opinion on Muslims. Does that mean that most Americans want Muslims to die at the hands of ISIS? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that probably the majority of non-Muslim Americans will have trouble empathizing and sympathizing with the Muslims being killed by ISIS.

So, what does Obama do? Something very, very smart. He mentions the huge masses of Muslims being slaughtered, raped, kidnapped, or otherwise brutalized by ISIS. Immediately afterwards, he mentions the thousands of Christians and other religious minorities who are also endangered by the terrorist group (just a side-note: I wonder what reaction hundreds of Americans had to the idea of a country where Christianity is considered a religious minority?). This, in my opinion, is genius. The sad truth is, many Christians just can't empathize with non-Christians, or at the very least find it hard to care. When the issue is far off, and happening to another culture, another religion (that they don't seem to be very fond of), they can think of it as an abstraction. When Christians are mentioned, however, they have to empathize with them. I guess this sounds a bit harsher than it should, but in essence, Obama was speaking to hundreds of closed minded people and basically saying, "Hey! They're people, too!"

The ending to this speech is particularly terrific, and I'm pretty sure it breaks every single rule O'Brien set down for true war stories. Obama glorifies the heroes from Afghanistan. He talks about America's "duty" to the rest of the world to fix the planet's problems. He calls upon American's in a very communal way and even compliments them on their "grit, determination, and common goodness." While I've never been a fan of the whole "America is perfect, war is a sacrifice we must make to save the entire planet all the time" type thing, I do agree that we perhaps should get out hands dirty once in a while. We live lives of privilege that we take for granted every day. Other people fear for their lives on a daily basis. I don't think we owe anything to them, or have any sort of responsibility, but if we can help, then why not?

That said, I think it's really important to choose our battles well. There's a difference between helping out in a foreign cause that actually could potentially impact Americans and diving into some other country's business when they don't even want us there. As far as the story he's telling goes, I don't think it's true - at least by O'Brien's criteria. But what political speech does anything but make Americans feel good about themselves?