Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 1

Obamas Speech on Drone Policy and Counterterrorism

By Christopher Myers
With the increased controversy on drone strikes in the Middle East after three American
citizens being killed by drones in recent news, Obama, knowing the rhetorical context, addresses
the audience of the American people who think that the U.S. drone program is out of line and
unsuccessful. These would include the human rights organizations that petition against drone
strikes. By arguing that these American citizens were truly terrorists, he provides evidence that
with proper oversight and limitation, the U.S. drone program will continue to be successful into
the future.
On May 23, 2013, President Obama spoke on U.S. drone and counterterror policy. In his
speech, Obama opened a new chapter in the U.S.s struggle with terrorism by proclaiming that
because of the high number of civilian deaths, there would be more restriction and oversight of
unmanned aerial drone strikes (Obama). While the drone program is at the heart of the United
States national security strategy, Obama talks about the long-term success of the program by
posing the question of whether the short-term benefits of eliminating terrorist leaders outweigh
the increasing number of civilian deaths and people who have become terrorists because of drone
strikes? Furthermore, through his exigent use of rhetorical devicesincluding logos, ethos,
pathos, juxtaposition, idioms, ad populum fallacy, parallelism, and at times ambiguous language
President Obama reassures the nation that United States is the greatest country in the world.
Most of President Obamas drone policy and comments on counterterrorism is
concentrated in the first half of his speech, before a heckler interrupts him. In many ways,
President Obama employs the ad populum fallacy to rally the spirits of the American people.
Although some critics claim his empathetic rhetoric, causes more harm than good, Obama

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 2

explains that the secrecy on some drone topics is necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens
on the battlefield (Goodman). For example, in his speech he says, As commander-in-chief, I
believe we must keep information secret that protects our security and our people in the field. To
do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment
to protect classified information (Obama).
With his patriotic and uplifting language, Obama persuades the audience to have hope in
the United States in its fight against terrorism. He tells the inspiring story of what binds us
together as a nation, but he does not go into the specifics of a war we have been at for a decade.
He focuses on the important and motivational information, not the whole story. With his
continued allusions to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, Obama provides a
common ground, or ethos, throughout the speech. Because who does not remember where they
were on that fateful day? Good rhetorical question
In the beginning of his speech, using patriotism and pathos, President Obama builds up
the audiences pride in the nation by identifying all the things this country was built on.
However, he transitions into the discussion on drones and detention of terrorists with the idiom
America is at a crossroads (Obama). Obama redirects the audience away from the
conversation on al Qaeda to focus on their affiliates the real threat now that the United States
has defeated the core of al Qaeda leadership. Their remaining operatives spend more time
thinking about their own safety than plotting against us, Obama claims.
The spread of violent extremism throughout the world is a growing fear. These people are
deranged or alienated individuals who are the seed of the future of terrorism (Obama).
Obama provides a parallel to before 9/11 when he identifies these individuals as being
responsible for orchestrating attacks. With this being said, Obama is not clear on how these

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 3

people develop their ideology of radicalism. His purposeful ambiguity on this topic and
convoluted sentences serve to portray him as remaining neutral on the subject, while giving no
reason for their inane actions.
Obama also employs the use of logos to describe the necessity for drones:
In some of these places such as parts of Somalia and Yemen the state only has the
most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to
take action. And its also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special
Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are
places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians where a
terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding
tribal communities, for example, that pose no threat to us; times when putting U.S. boots
on the ground may trigger a major international crisis (Obama).
In this quote, Obama points out the obvious restrictions that limit soldiers from successful
eliminating all the necessary targets. With this being said, why cant special forces be flown in
by helicopter to take out terrorists leaders like was done with Osama Bin Laden? Obama
anticipates and addresses the this counter-argument with the following assumptions: Given that
Bin Laden was such a high value target, there were numerous risks involved civilian
causalities, meticulous planning, professionalism - and consequently, the U.S. Pakistani
relationship suffered. Therefore, Obama relying on the rhetorical device logos concludes that,
due to the innumerable risks, the use of drones instead of U.S. soldiers is logical.
Obama then moves into answering some of the many questions raised about drone strikes
including: who is targeted and why; do drones violate domestic and international laws; are the

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 4

civilian death numbers significantly large; and are drones moral? In addressing the effectiveness
of drones, Obama uses the idiom dont take my word for it, to transition into the evidence for
the drone programs success. Obama writes, In the intelligence gathered at bin Ladens
compound, we found that he wrote, We could lose the reserves to enemys air strikes. We
cannot fight air strikes with explosives. With every enemy combatant killed and every attack
on American halted, Obama poignantly points out that simply put, these strikes have saved
lives (Obama).
President Obama avoids using the word drones, and instead, generally, refers to them
as a new technology. Obamas refusal to use the word drones in the general writing style of
his speech, points to the fact that U.S. citizens feel more uneasy about the word. Obama,
recognizing this in his speech, uses diction wisely to persuade the audience of the efficiency of
drones.
Again, referring back to the 9/11 attacks, Obama makes the claim that the U.S. is justified
in their actions. Through the approval by Congress to use deadly force, and the official
declaration of war against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all terrorists, the United States has the right
to avenge all the lost American lives. President Obama appeals to the audiences emotions with
pathos, when he says we are acting in self-defense. In saying this, he is saying we have no other
recourse but to stop them first, using any means necessary to save American lives (Obama).
Obama brings up the counter-argument, when he suggests that the U.S.s claim of selfdefense cannot be the end of the discussion. He insists that with the continued advancement of
technology, the risk of abuse increases, and thats why increased administrational oversight is
critical to moral action. Obama provides the audience with a kairotic moment in his speech when
he states that he has just signed the Presidential Policy Guidance, which demands guidelines,

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 5

oversight, and accountability over the drone program. This includes the near-certainty that no
civilians will be killed or injured to the highest standard we can set.
From his position of authority as Commander-in-Chief, Obama maintains with pathos
that he carries the weight of all the tragedies afflicted to non-militants. He also makes the point
that the terrorist leaders goals are to target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of
terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing
nothing is not an option (Obama). In this quote, Obama implies that the use of drones is logical
(logos) because the collateral casualties from drone strikes is less than the number of civilians
killed in terrorist attacks.
Obama insists that putting troops in the middle of these territories to take out terrorists
invite even more backlash, and possibly war. And, through this violent conflict, more casualties
will result than that from drone strikes. Obama juxtaposes the war in Afghanistan with the
Vietnam War, to show how many people died in a war where the boundaries were blurred
(Obama).
By repeating several times that Congress is briefed before every drone strike, Obama
emphasizes the fact that the American people can be sure of the drone programs oversight and
accountability. He even mentions the possibility of the establishment of a special drone court
under the judicial branch. However, later in his speech, Obama mentions the declassification of
the documents describing the circumstances of the three American deaths from drone strikes. In
doing this, he is giving the people what they want, and providing evidence to dismiss the false
rumors. In the case of Anwar Awlaki, the President is sure to express to the audience that he
[Awlaki] was continuously trying to kill people, and, as President, it was his duty to order his
murder to save the lives of U.S. citizens (Obama). After this assertion, Obama explains to the

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 6

audience through the use of pathos, that the hardest thing for him to as President is put soldiers in
danger. With the American peoples livelihood in mind, Obama makes these decisions to save
lives.
By orienting the attacks on 9/11 as a basis point throughout his speech on foreign policy,
President Obama provides ethos and exigence for the nation to stand behind him, and trust his
judgment. In his speech, Obama employs the use of many rhetorical devices including ethos,
pathos, logos, kairos, idioms, ad populum and juxtaposition to convince the American people
that drones are the logical and most efficient way of protecting our country and securing our
freedom in the future days to come.

Works Cited

Rhetorical Analysis

Myers 7

Obamas Speech on Drone Policy. The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 May 2013.
Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Obamas Drone Policy Crashes and Burns. In These Times. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.