My Problem With "One Chance"

I was originally just going to post a Facebook post in response to this video, but when it got past 500 characters, I figured you'd all thank me for making it a blog post rather than clogging up your wall. I just saw Obama's "One Chance" video. (and my extra long facebook post makes sense now.)

Brilliant PR strategist behind that. Someone got paid big bucks to make such a good video. First, it opens with the quote, "The Commander-in-Chief gets one chance to make the right decision." As it continues, we find out that Bill Clinton said it, but since it's not cited at first, it leaves the possibility open for either party. At this moment, it could be a Republican campaign knocking Obama for failing to make "the right decision" with the economy or foreign policy or whatever they want to nag on at the moment. But the video goes right to Bill Clinton quoting George Bush. Clinton is the authority that the video rests on, a "I know what I'm talking about because I've been President" authority. To add to that, he jokingly adds that bit about George Bush, purposely throwing Bush's weight into the mix too.

Next scene, remind the audience of the weight of Obama's decision. Throw in some images of Pakistan and America's reaction to Bin Laden's death. Make sure the voters remember exactly how they felt when the man who orchestrated the deaths of 3,000 Americans was killed by U.S. Special Forces. Continue with counterargument of the "what if" situation. What if Seal Team Six had been captured, tortured, killed? "The downside would have been horrible for them." That's political correctness for "America would have turned on Obama." No, not that kind. We're talking total alienation of the President. Can you imagine if Special Forces had been captured in a country that was presumed to be our ally (kind of) and the government wasn't giving us any reason as to WHY they were there in the first place? The media would have ripped them and Obama apart. But Clinton continued, "BUT he reasoned." That simple sentence turns the whole counter situation around. It's Writing 101:
1) present counterargument
2) negative conjunction
3) negate
This implies that Obama was only agent involved in the decision. He's the only subject in the sentence, and he's a reasonable one at that. That's really all we Americans want for a president, right? A reasonable person who can make the tough decisions. Cherry on the top, he's a moral person because his "conscience couldn't do nothing." Seriously, this may be my English major showing through, but this is brilliantly written. Clinton then says that Obama made the decision that produced "in [his] opinion" to best result. This is overlaid with a picture of American firefights kneeling before the sign stating, "Osama Bin Laden is Dead," implying that Clinton isn't the only one who thinks it produced the best result.

And the political spear comes out! Enter Romney. What would Romney have done? Quotes from 2007 and 2008 about America spending billions of dollars on one man suggest he wouldn't have done a thing. But shouldn't we move Heaven and Earth to capture the man who planned 9/11? As the reporter purposely under-exaggerates, Romney's quotes generated "a little controversy." Transition to the image of Obama--the solitary pillar of strength facing the light of day from his dark, isolated office.

Finally, it ends with fantastically manipulated word choice. In an economy placing so much weight on jobs and money, Clinton ends by stating, "You hire the President to make the calls when no one else can do it." The language reminds the audience of the picture of Obama that we just saw. But its the "you hire" that is so well thought out. By saying "you," the video speaks directly to the individual, and "hire" implies that the choice is yours. You have the power, the President only has the ability to make the choices that no one else can. Hence, he better step up the plate when we need him to. If I wanted to be that "baseball metaphor guy," the president is our pinch hitter. He makes the hits when we can't. And with that, the video has come full circle back to the opening quote.

I want to be that good at PR. The fact that this was timed exactly one year after Seal Team Six killed Osama Bin Laden is no coincidence. I'm jealous of the strategist behind this video. But drooling aside, I have some serious issues with it.

First, I recognize that it was a difficult decision for Obama to make, but aren't we forgetting that it was the brave Seal Team Six that did the real work? A campaign strategy shouldn't be built on the actions of others. Obama did not coordinate any of the actions that took place leading up to that night. He said yes to an opportunity that military generals advised him to. I don't want to down play the risk Obama took in approving Seal Team Six's mission, but I do not think it should impact his reelection. As Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, "It's now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters' attention from  the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad." I would have thought that a nation that has been so against invasive foreign policy lately would have agreed with this. Alas, Romney's PR isn't as good as Obama's in this situation. The fact remains that when Seal Team Six invaded Pakistan illegally, Pakistan was still presented as our ally. It's true that our international relationship was complicated and convoluted, but that makes Obama's decision to drop our Special Forces in there even more ballsy, in my opinion. If Ron Paul were in office, I doubt the mission would have happened at all. But Romney, I'm not so sure. His quotes from 2007 and 2008 were said during times when Pakistan was cooperating with the United States. If we had dropped a team of Special Forces into their country during those times, we would have looked like a bully. Whether we still did in 2011 or not, is up to you. Either way though, we can't speculate our future based on hypothetical past situations.

Another point that I think deserves mentioning is that the video's authority, Mr. Clinton, is not the best ground to stand on when talking about decisive action. In 2011, Forbes reported that in 1998 then-President Clinton had the opportunity to kill Bin Laden, but was too indecisive to do so. Whether or not this happened depends on if you believe the numerous third parties, dozens of books, and key witness, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson (no lie, I might have typed Pattinson just now. damn you twilight.) who wrote about the event in his book, Dereliction of Duty. Patterson said,

"Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit[uation] Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk [missile] crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient....Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses – and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of Defense and State. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock."

By the time President Clinton made a decision, Bin Laden had slipped away to begin plotting the attacks that would take place 5 years later. So is Clinton really the best support for a video centered on decisive action and tough decisions? Not in my opinion.

But all of those reasons pale in comparison to the fact that the men of Seal Team Six are the true heroes. I hate that their actions are being used as publicity for an election. It degrades the work they did and continue to do. Presidents will come and go, but the military will always be there to protect us. By using them as a pawn in an election, President Obama is disrespecting them because, ultimately, that mission was never about Obama--it was about protecting the American people. I hope that when people see this video, instead of honoring Obama for his decision, they remember the brave men and women who fight for them every day. The ones who actually stand alone, looking out at the world, because they can't tell their families where they are or what they're doing. The ones who make life or death decisions every day, but are never honored for them. The ones who give their bodies, minds, and souls, not just their election. These are the heroes. Remember that.

Holla Military Girls

When I see posts, videos, or pictures about military homecomings...

Before I was dating a military member:

Now:

You too?