Lacombe & Jensen 1

Hannah Lacombe & Casey W. Jensen

Professor Peter Blair
UWRT 1102-021
20 October 2014
Milestone in Eliminating Syria's Chemical Weapons Program
War is a complex issue, and though we often face it with a good vs. evil mentality, this
comic book approach is too simplistic. When politicians are seeking support amidst conflict,
they must appeal to this embedded sense of heroism in order to legitimize their actions especially when it concerns launching operations in a faraway country that has not acted in direct
aggression towards us or our allies. Politicians will do everything to keep hues of grey out of the
picture the U.S. must be painted as heroic in order to gain its citizens support, and there must
be a great evil to defeat in order to validate involvement in another countries affairs. We can
see a clear example of this tactic in John Kerrys speech Milestone in Eliminating Syrias
Chemical Weapons Program. Through either/or and name-calling, using authority instead of
evidence, begging the question, and emotional bandwagon fallacies, Secretary John Kerry
appeals to constituents for support in ramping up military actions in Syria. Instead of discussing
the larger international issue of chemical warfare and considering the grievances of various
political factions that may lead them to feel the need to stockpile such weapons, Kerry oversteps
these fundamental (and often complex) root causes in order to win support for quick action. By
avoiding elaboration on his statements and backing them up with solid evidence, Kerrys
arguments are weakened.
John Kerry begins his speech by celebrating Today, we mark a milestone in our
unrelenting work to ensure the end of the Assad regimes deadly chemical arsenal (Kerry 2014).

Lacombe & Jensen 2

Notice the inclusion of adjectives such as unrelenting to describe the United States, and
deadly to describe the Assad regime. These types of descriptive words are not accidental, and
can be found littered throughout the entire short speech. Instead of saying: our work to end
the Assad regimes chemical arsenal, carefully chosen adjectives begin to subtly paint a good
vs. evil image of the situation. Other similar example of adjectives used to present the situation
in this type of either/or way can be found when Kerry describes Assads regime as tragic and
bone-chilling, and the U.S. as mindful and committed to help.
Another example of where Secretary of State John Kerry uses the either/or fallacy to
paint this good vs. evil picture is when he begins name-calling. In the third sentence of his
speech, Kerry refers to Assad as a monster, and contrasts him to those who belong to the
civilized world. Without knowing a thing about Bashar al-Assad, people listening to the
speech immediately gain an image of the man that may or may not be accurate. Indeed, the issue
is not whether or not the accusation is accurate, but rather that it is a tactic that is being used to
win over supporters to the idea that he should be aggressively opposed.
In the article Syrian Chemical Weapons Arsenal Eliminated Aboard MV Cape Ray,
NBC News points out that Kerry said: "no one can or ever will wipe away that memory" of the
August 21, 2013, attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,426 people, including hundreds of
children. "The images of children suffering at the hands of a monster's illicit arsenal reminded all
the world why these weapons have long been shunned by the civilized world and revealed for
any who still doubted the true face of Assad" (Kerry 2014). This is a very bold statement towards
the monsters saying their behaviors have been shunned by the civilized world. Also stating
their behavior has revealed to the world for any who still doubted the true face of Assad,
suggesting to the audience that Assad is a heartless monster. John Kerry seems to be using this

Lacombe & Jensen 3

name-calling approach in his speech to fear his audience of the chemical warfare in Syria in
order to gain support. As we see in many political speeches, the use of a fear tactic is very
common in obtaining the support of the people. This example of Kerrys name-calling fallacy
with an aspect of either/or in his speech shows his intension about what he wants the audience to
gain from the speech.
Secondly, on multiple occasions, Kerry uses his authority instead of evidence. The most
glaring of these examples is found when he says: Assad lost any legitimacy to lead Syria long
before without explaining why Assad lost legitimacy or how the Syrian people (in whose
sovereign view a Syrian leader gains or loses legitimacy) declared Assad as illegitimate. In fact,
throughout Kerrys speech, we do not even have a beginning of an understanding of what
percentage of people within Syria do not support Assad it would stand to reason that he is not
altogether without backing. Another example of when Kerry uses his authority instead of
evidence is when he says that the United States is committed to supporting the moderate
opposition. Kerry qualifies this comment by saying that the United States is committed to help
those who seek the right of all Syrians to choose a future of peace and oppose violent
extremists. In this instance, Kerry is expecting his audience to take it on his authority that the
opposition group does indeed provide such an opportunity to the Syrian people he provides no
information on what type of leadership the moderate opposition offers to the Syrian people. In
fact, not only does Kerry reference and uplift the opposition without providing further detail
about who they are and what their platform is, but he also does not accurately convey who the
rebels are or what their grievances are. According to article, Syria Crisis: Guide to armed and
Political Opposition by BBC News there are a multitude of different rebel brigades (including
the Islamic Front and the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army) that have

Lacombe & Jensen 4

possession of chemical weapons. In order to paint an accurate picture of the situation, Kerry
should talk about these groups specifically within his speech to avoid confusion or oversimplification. By providing more background details, Kerry could educate his audience of the
situation on the ground, giving his argument more credibility, and avoid the fallacy of either/or
through simply labeling all rebels monsters.
A third fallacy that Kerry uses is begging the question; he presents his argument in a onesided manner rather than relying on true bi-lateral evidence to convince his listeners of his point
of view. According to the article written by the Arms Control Association, titled Syria Meets
Key Chemical Arms Deadline, the intention of Kerrys speech is to praise the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons United Nation (OPCW-UN) team that is overseeing and
verifying the Syrian chemical disarmament effort for working with unprecedented speed to
accomplish the first milestone in eliminating Syrias chemical weapons and reducing the
possibility that they will ever be used again (Horner 2013). Kerry emphasized that Syria must
continue to comply with its obligations under the OPCW Executive Council and UN Security
Council decisions. After speedily praising the OPCW, Kerry dives directly into talking about the
persisting problem in Syria to insure the audience will agree with his argument, not sharing any
true evidence of the situation in Syria.
Additionally, Kerry mentions nothing within his speech about the other countries that
possess these same weapon including Irag, Libya, Russia, and the United States. According to
the article Getting Rid of Syrias Chemical Weapons Stockpile Could take Years by UN
Tribune, of the seven countries that have declared they possess these weapons, only Albania,
India, and a third country said to be South Korea, have completed destruction of their stockpile
of prohibited chemical agents and chemical munitions. Four other countries besides Syria have

Lacombe & Jensen 5

not even signed the CWC including, Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan, while two,
Israel and Myanmar, have signed but not ratified. By omitting these details, Kerry does not
portray a well-rounded picture of the issue of chemical weapons; by painting a more simplistic
picture, Kerry begs a question about chemical warfare that is not inclusive of the complexities
surrounding this international relations issue.
Finally, and perhaps most prominently, Secretary John Kerry relies heavily on
bandwagon fallacies with an emotional approach to win the approval of his listeners. Take for
example this statement: Assads bone-chilling, deadly chemical weapons attack that killed more
than 1,000 innocent Syrians, including so many children (Kerry 2014). Kerry continues to drive
this emotional image home by describing it as an image of horrendous suffering that can never
be wiped from memory and a second time specifies violence against children. By stating
events in such a way, Kerrys intention is clearly to invoke a bandwagon approach and to get an
emotional response from his audience. Under the timetable of the OPCW-UN plan, Syria is to
complete the elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of
2014 (Kerry 2014). This statement by John Kerry is another attempt to gain support from the
audience by bandwagoning together with the UN in sharing the OPCW-UN plan to have the
chemical weapons in Syria eliminated. Instead of presenting a solid argument to convince the
American people to support his position, Kerry is relying instead on the fact that the UN is doing
it, and therefore so should the U.S. The fallacy of this particular case of bandwagoning is further
accentuated by the fact that many times in the past the U.S. has gone directly against the wishes
of the UN in its decisions concerning international relations.
It is not surprising that Secretary of State John Kerry relies on over-simplification
through such fallacies as either/or and name-calling, using authority instead of evidence, begging

Lacombe & Jensen 6

the question and bandwagoning to appeal to the emotions of his audience. War can be difficult
to sell, and politicians often have very little time to make a case to an audience who is anything
but homogeneous in their worldviews and understanding of international affairs. As we can see
through a basic knowledge of the issue of chemical warfare, it is indeed a complex and multilateral affair. Kerry avoids the real complexity of the issue by focusing on Syria alone and
relying on fallacies to win support. Though it is understandable that Kerry would over-simplify
the issue in such a way, by doing so he weakens his argument. Even if Kerry chose to simplify
the issue to focus on Syria alone, his argument would have been more sound if he used some
solid facts instead of leaning so heavily on an over-simplified appeal to American ideals. By
painting a black and white/good vs. evil picture of the Syrian situation concerning chemical
weapons, Kerry undermines the legitimacy of taking such a firm stance, especially when it
involves meddling in other countrys affairs.

Lacombe & Jensen 7

Work Cited

Arkin, Daniel. "Syria Chemical Weapons Arsenal Eliminated Aboard MV Cape Ray." NBC
NEWS. 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
Fitzgerald, Denis. "Getting Rid of Syrias Chemical Weapons Stockpile Could Take Years." UN
Tribune. 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

"Eliminating Chemical Weapons in Syria." U.S. Department of Senate. 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Oct.
2014.

Horner, Daniel. "Syria Meets Key Chemical Arms Deadline." Arms Control Association. 1 Nov.
2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.

Kerry, John. "Milestone in Eliminating Syria's Chemical Weapons Program." U.S. Department of
Senate. 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
McClintok, Ann. Propaganda Techniques in Todays Advertising. The Longman
Reader. Ed.Judith Nadell. New York: Longman, 2003. 304-311. Print.
Randall, Elizabeth. "A Major Milestone in Our Effort to Eliminate Syrias Chemical Weapons
Program." The White House Blog. 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
Sinjab, Lina. "Syria Crisis: Guide to Armed and Political Opposition." BBC News Middle East.
13 Dec. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

Wood, Nancy. Essentials of Argument. Upper Saddle River: Pearson / Prentice Hall, 2006.
Print.