A General Sacked

Speech By: President Obama
Title: Resignation of General McChrystal
Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Rose Garden
Occasion: Resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Analysis:
These remarks are not a case of how well something is said, but rather, the substance of what is said, and how decisively the words are delivered. By that measure, these remarks meet the standard admirably well.

Let’s start by not mincing words - General Stanley McChrystal was fired, he did not just resign. Let’s take it one step further - he should have been fired.

The Bully Pulpit has covered the controversy between Gen. McChrystal and the President, beginning with the General’s speech last Fall in which he indicated 40,000 more troops were needed in Afghanistan. It came close to crossing the line of insubordination, but was not overtly political. Still, the speech did serve to put unwelcome political pressure on the General’s ultimate boss - the Commander in Chief.

In response, the Commander in Chief went directly to West Point - to speak in front of those who would have to carry out whatever decision he announced - to deliver his reply.

It is the highest tradition of the American military, that its members ultimately take their orders from civilians. That they do this without public challenge, has given us a nation worthy of the lives they are willing to expend in its defense.

The most notable exception to this honored tradition was General MacArthur’s public challenge of President Truman during the Korean War. While it cost him political standing, Truman’s response, to fire MacArthur, ultimately strengthened the nation, and the Presidency itself.

While General McChrystal’s staff antics - speaking with open contempt of elected civilian officials in the presence of a reporter for Rolling Stone - may not quite rise to the same level as MacArthur, they are egregious enough. Given the previous history, there really seemed no choice. The President’s swift, decisive action in this case, is in the high tradition of President Truman, and America itself.

Length (words): 1176
Text Posted: White House Web Site


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

President Obama on Afghanistan

Speech By: President Barack Obama

Title: Policy Address on Afghanistan
Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Eisenhower Hall, United States Military Academy - West Point, New York
Occasion:  Policy Statement
Length (words): 4,583
Transcript Posted: New York Times

Background:
Some observers opine that the President has been over-exposed since taking office. They argue he gives speeches rather than making policy and administering government, almost as if he were still on the campaign trail.

No reasonable person would say that on this occasion. One of the most difficult decisions a President can make is that of sending troops into harm’s way.

Symbolism adds an essential element to a good speech, and location is a time-tested way to enhance symbolism. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech would have been great in any locale. But with the Lincoln Memorial as backdrop, the carved stone visage of the Great Emancipator gazing down on the throng, it was an effective way to augment the powerful words of the speech.

In choosing the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for this policy address, the President has chosen a location heavy in symbolism. He addressed, face to face, an auditorium filled with the very people he will be ordering into harm’s way.

It’s a location which added a dramatic air to the President’s remarks - a drama which might have otherwise been lacking, considering the White House had already let it be known over the weekend that General McChrystal’s request for more troops would be agreed to by the President.

Analysis:
This speech might have been written by Ernest Hemingway. It consists mostly of short declarative sentences. That style differs markedly from most of the President’s other speeches.

Unlike many of his other speeches, this one relies on the use of the collective “we” - which creates that shared identification with the audience - rather than “I.” He uses the words, “we, we’ve or we’ll” a hundred times, roughly three times as often as he says “I or I’ll.”  It’s a subtle and welcome change. Particularly on this occasion. When you are addressing a room full of soldiers - some of whom will almost certainly not return because of your decision, audience identification is vital.

Another tendency of the President, which has been discussed here before, is to use the word “And” to begin a sentence. As previously noted, nothing in English grammar prohibits this, but the technique can be over-used. Tonight, it happened 28 times in a speech of only 232 sentences. That works out to 12 per cent of the time. That’s a rate I suspect Hemingway might have taken exception to.

As is so often the case, the President is addressing many audiences in this speech: The 43 nations who are allied in the struggle, the enemies we face, the two countries where the fighting is taking place, the rest of the world, the American people, the left-wing members of his own party in particular who object to the war, even the financial markets who will provide the capital to fund the war. Oh, yes, and that room full of cadets and their officers who will do the fighting.

On balance it is an effective speech.

It starts out establishing the reasons for the war in Afghanistan, noting that our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. He recites a history of the war, touches on the evil presented by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and announces a timetable for ending the conflict. He also announces that 30,000 additional American troops, and a total of 40,00 troops in total, will be assigned to the conflict.

He engages in some effective rhetorical flourishes - even touching on some of the elements of American exceptionalism: “But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.” It’s a traditional theme, largely avoided - in some cases even rejected - by the President, in previous speeches.

In the next to last paragraph he hearkens back to the 9/11 attacks which formed the basis for the beginning of his speech: “It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.” It’s an effective way to bring the speech full circle.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

General McChrystal on Afghanistan

Title: General McChrystal’s Speech on Afghanistan
Background: On Tuesday, President Obama will announce his decision on whether to accede to General Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation that an additional 40,000 troops be assigned to Afghanistan.
While General McChrystal made his request to the President through standard military channels, it was this speech that brought the issue to public attention.
Speech By: General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander, International Security Assistance Forces, NATO
Date: October 1, 2009
Location: Arundel House - London, United Kingdom
Occasion: Special Address - International Institute for Strategic Studies
Length (words): 3826
Video Posted: International Institute for Strategic Studies 
Text Posted: Real Clear Politics

Analysis:
One of the finest traditions of this nation’s military is that active-duty service members do not get involved in political debate. Some observers claimed this speech was a violation of that principle.

This speech may indeed have put political pressure on the President, but it is not overtly political. It details the situation in Afghanistan as the General has found it, makes certain recommendations about how to improve the situation, and even explains why success is important. He is, after all the Commanding General in a theater of military operations against hostile forces. He should be able to make such explanations.

But, at no time does McChrystal demand more troops or other resources, or take issue with policy as set by the White House.

It is laid out with military precision, but that doesn’t mean the speech lacks the elements of a good speech - albeit one being delivered to a public policy organization.

Starting with a preamble, he immediately establishes a shared identification with the audience. He points out his deputy commander is a British Lieutenant General, then goes on to recognize “the enormous sacrifice that families here in the UK have made.” He is, after all, speaking in London.


He then tells his audience, “I will start by posing seven questions before attempting to answer them.” This is an effective way to structure a speech so the audience can follow it - tell the audience what to expect.

To illustrate the complexities of the society in which his troops must operate, he describe the complications which can arise from digging a well for the inhabitants of a village - something he correctly surmises the audience would assume to be an act of generosity for the village in question. This works on two levels - it’s a good way to review a complex situation, plus it gives the audience a clear mental image of what is being described.

It is a fairly long speech, as befits both the complexity and the seriousness of the topic. To help grab the attention of his audience, he employs such classic devices to hold audience attention as challenging generally accepted truths about the topic.

Ultimately, the true measure of success for a speech like this is how the President reacts to it. While General McChrystal’s speech did not publicly challenge the President, he is on the spot politically. Then again, that’s a President’s job. We’ll know if the speech was successful Tuesday night.

From the Bully Pulpit - Tom