Obama on Foreign Affairs

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga

Barack Obama relies on two main types of rhetoric in his speech to the Chicago Council regarding Global Affairs. The first of these rhetorical strategies is an appeal to Ethos. Although Obama is on a freshman in the Senate, he stresses that his decisions in Congress have only strengthened America in the past year, and with his experiences he will lead the country. However, Obama fails to touch on his lack of experience, or lack of any great movements while in Congress. So, with this experience, he confidently says that his plan “offers the best chance of pressuring warring factions toward a political settlement”, with a “withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.” So, these “warring factions” are to be brought to peace after armed forces have left? It is strongly lofty and slightly adolescent to believe that the war will be solved with peace, after we have already initiated violence. This will only leave America looking exposed, and also very hypocritical. Furthermore, if we do remove troops and Obama’s plan would fail, then America faces another potential war, or another terrorist attack. So, while Obama relies greatly on his reputation and credibility in Congress throughout the speech, his experience and reliability for these lofty changes do not line up.
The second type of rhetorical appeal Obama uses throughout his speech to the Chicago Council is Logos. Obama uses simple explanations that seem very logical to Americans. For example, he says “we must bring a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocus on the critical challenges in the broader region.” In reality the complexity of this statement is almost impossible to describe. “Bring a responsible end” sounds like the right thing to do, but what does it really mean? A responsible end sounds easier than it may actually be, coming from a country who is rapidly losing respect in the Middle East. Furthermore, Obama’s forceless resolution of this “broader region” seems to be impossible; especially in the hostile environments that now plague middle-eastern countries. Another example is Obama’s resolution for disarming the world of nuclear weapons “within four years.” If a plan is made and all nuclear weapons are accounted for, is it really possible to convince military based countries to dismantle, without force? Even now many countries aspire to have nuclear power,and they most-likely will once they can achieve the source of funds. So it is very unlikely that Obama’s plan will rid the world of nuclear weapons, without the use of American force, that ultimately leads to more casualties. The final representation of Obama’s appeal is backing of N.A.T.O., and their ever-increasing list of endeavors. While this looks very appealing, because we would be assisting for once rather than being the primary attacker, this will only increase our national debt and our death count in the Middle East. So, while Obama’s simple explanations of how we will solve our nation’s problems seem promising, there are many questions that arise from his farfetched goals, which often leave America wondering if we need these dramatic changes.
Instead of a quick removal of American troops out of Iraq, how about we attempt a timed withdrawal, while offering increasing incentives to the Iraqi government for progress. If America does leave Iraq now, we will become very susceptible to allowing an all out catalyst of Middle-Eastern warfare. The purpose of entering Iraq may have been blind and senseless, but we cannot change our current involvement or we will lose everything that we have fought so hard for. Additionally we need to also offer incentives to countries that are willing to disable their nuclear weapons, while expanding our intelligence in that area. American society demands change and Barack Obama promises it with his foreign policy, but these changes promised by Obama and demanded by society may be too lofty, even for America.