My reactions to President Obama's speech on terrorism and ISIS.

President Obama. Official portrait. 

President Obama's speech. 

President Obama just gave a wide ranging speech in the Oval Office about terrorism, gun control and ISIS. If you missed it, the whole speech is posted above. The speech comes after the San Bernardino attack, which is being called the worst terrorist attack since 9/11. I watched the whole speech as it happened and these are my reactions. I'm no fan of Obama, but I will try to balance my criticism with a few things I think President Obama got right this time around. 

The Good:

Though there was not much in this speech that was new or original, President Obama did, for the first time as far as I can tell, admitted that a couple of attacks inspired by Islamic extremism were indeed terrorism. Specifically, he mentioned the Fort Hood attack and the Chattanooga shooting. In the past, both of those attacks were dismissed as mass shootings and workplace violence. Indeed, that was the way coverage of the San Bernardino attacks were going as well, even after it was clear that it was an act of terrorism. 

President Obama has ensured that that will no longer happen. And by recognizing the fact that these were terrorist attacks he has corrected a mistake he made. This is a huge deal and for once I will commend the President. This was the right thing to do. Sure he made a mistake, but it looks like he is admitting to the country that he made that mistake and won't continue to do so in the future. It's rare that I will say much good about Barack Obama, but in this case he did the right thing. 

I also think that trying to deflect retribution attacks against Muslims is probably a good thing. Though I don't agree with the fact that Obama is letting in refugees, I do think its a bad thing that innocent people could be attacked due to the attack in California. I don't know if his execution was great, but the sentiment was somewhat sound.

I was also glad that the mentioned that the engagement visa system that allowed Tashfeen Malik into the country. I don't think that anything major will be done about the system, but at the very least it will be looked at. 

The Bad:

Once again, Barack Obama called for gun control. I, of course, strongly disagree with that. Specifically, Obama called for the renewal of the assault weapon ban and making it so that people on the no-fly list can't buy weapons. Neither of these things would have stopped the San Bernardino shooting. Even if the suspects had been on the list, which they weren't, they used a straw buyer to buy the rifles they used anyways. And due to California gun laws, those rifles were extremely neutered, to the point where it is believed that the suspects modified the weapons themselves. And even if they weren't able to get rifles, they were still able to get handguns and explosives, which would have been more then enough to kill about the same amount of people. 

The assault weapon ban is dead in this country. It's a political impossibility right now. In order to get it to pass, the Democrats would have to take both houses of the senate and capture the presidency to make sure that they could stuff the supreme court with anti-gun judges. For a lot of complicated reasons that I won't get into here, that's very unlikely to happen. As it stands right now, the Republicans in congress would never let it happens. Period. 

And even if it did somehow pass, it would be banning the most popular and numerous weapons in the country. People would not stand for it. At best you would see a large amount of civil disobedience with people not complying with the law, along with an absolute (metaphorical) slaughter for Democrats during the next election. At worst you would have protests, riots, rebellion and perhaps even civil war. So even if Barack Obama was able to bring back the ban, the consequences would be severe to say the least. Whatever supposed benefits the assault weapon would have, and I would argue that there would be zero, they would be outweighed by the obvious and extreme downsides. 

As far as not letting people on the no-fly list buy guns, I think it is a terrible idea. I don't even think it is legal. The no fly list would be depriving a civil right, buying firearms, without due process. You don't have a right to fly on an airplane, but you do have a right, thanks to the 2nd amendment, to buy a firearm. You don't have to do anything illegal to get put on that list, and contesting it is very hard. The constitution says that you can't violate someones rights without due process, so I think any law passed would be easily challenged. 

The no-fly list has also been rightly criticized for all the people that got put on it without good reason. Many people ended up on the list because they shared a name with a terrorist or because they know someone who knows someone that may be a terrorist. Completely innocent people have been put on this list and once you are on it, it is very hard to get off of it. Plus most of the people on the list are Muslim. You can't give a speech about how not all Muslims should be blamed for terror attacks and then say that we should deprive people on a list that is largely composed of Muslims of their civil rights. It's hugely hypocritical. 

The Ugly:

I'm not sure Obama's plans to fight ISIS will work. I have said for a long time that airstrikes aren't enough. What is needed are troops on the ground. But Obama doesn't want to deploy those troops, and I can't say I blame him. I don't really want Americans fighting in Syria and Iraq either. But someone has to send troops. Airstrikes have their role, but they can't liberate territory from ISIS. Only ground troops can do that. I'm not sure who we can convince to fight for us, so we may end up having to deploy troops there eventually. 

I also think the diplomatic solution Obama is looking for is nothing more then a pipe dream. Nobody is going to accept a peace deal. Assad knows that if he gives up his power, he will most likely end up like Momar Qaddafi or Saddam Hussein. He needs to stay in power in order to keep breathing. It's very unlikely that anyone would be willing to protect him, so there is no reason for him to give up his power. He also has to be worried about what the fate of his people, the Alawites, would be if his government isn't there to protect him.

The rebels are also unlikely to sign a peace agreement. They have lost too much to give up without a victory. And it's not like they are in a terrible position either. There is little to make them want to give up, and the fact that they have been largely taken over Jihadists, including al-Qaeda's al-Nusra front, makes me wonder why we would want to make a deal with them anyways. Only the southern rebels, and a few groups up north working with the Kurds are anything close to being secular. Everyone else has been compromised. 

I also think that Obama missed an opportunity to educate America about Islam. Though "not all Muslims" is a tired cliche, it is true in away. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are committed by only one sect of Islam, the Sunni branch of the faith. Shia Islam, as well as smaller sects like the Alawites, do not have the same history with terrorism that the Sunni Muslims have. And there other groups that can be mistaken for Muslims due to things like race and ethnicity. Not all people from the Middle East are Muslims and Obama missed an opportunity to say that Christians, Druze, Sikhs and Yazidi exist, and are often discriminated against in cases of mistaken identity.

Of course, to do that Obama would have to have criticized Sunni Islam, which is not something I see happening. As far as I am concerned, Sunni Islam deserves quite a bit of criticism, and not just because of terrorism....