Biden’s Speech about the Kabul Bombing: Language and Style

Biden's speech about Afghanistan

The press often says that President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan policy has been weak. I cannot agree, but I wonder if the bureaucratic language style that he’s used over the past few days might have made him sound weak. Just recently, on August 26, 2021, Biden spoke about the ISIS bombing of soldiers and civilians during the evacuation of Americans and their allies from Kabul. Not only the conservative press, but even the more mainstream media have been saying harsh things about Biden’s leadership during the evacuation. So, Biden needed to sound strong. From the standpoint of content, he did that. In his speech, he said the right things to make himself look steadfast and strong. But did speech’s tone project strength? Not really. Too often, Biden used wordy sentences. He also used too many big words. This helps to explain why he still struggles to regain public confidence. In other words, Biden spoke in written style, not oral style.

We do not talk the way we write, and we don’t usually write the way we talk. To the extent that he promised (and delivered) strong action, Biden showed leadership. Yet, to the extent that he talked like a bureaucrat, rather than a leader, he failed to sound strong.


Showing Dedication

Yes, Biden talked about his dedicated efforts in Afghanistan. Getting right to the point in the third sentence, Biden told people that he was working hard to control the seemingly chaotic situation:

“I’ve been engaged all day and in constant contact with the military commanders here in Washington, the Pentagon, as well as in Afghanistan and Doha. And my command here in Washington has been on this with great detail and you’ve had a chance to speak to some.”

Those were, of course, exactly the things we want a president to be doing right now. We want the president to work with the commanders and gather information. Biden’s style of language, however, sounded like something from a published government report. Phrases like “I’ve been engaged” or “has been on this with great detail” were not going to stir the blood.


Could Biden Have Said Something Like This?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t: I’ve been working all day. I’ve been talking with our military leaders all over the world. My staff right here in Washington is looking at every detail. I know that you’ve already talked with some of them.

See the difference? The day’s events called for clear, sharp words, and we didn’t hear them. “Working” instead of “engaged.” “Talking” instead of “constant contact.” And so forth. Instead of writing like a bureaucrat, a president needs to talk like a speaker.


Sharing Knowledge

Afghanistan’s politics are difficult. Biden needed to express that. In particular, it seems that the group that bombed the embassy had nothing to do with the Taliban, which is a different organization. To appreciate what the president is doing, the public needs to understand that. And, indeed, Biden explained it:

“Over the past few weeks. I know you’re—many of you are probably tired of hearing me say it. We’ve been made aware, from our intelligence community, that the ISIS-K, an arch-enemy of the Taliban—people were freed when both those prisons were opened, have been planning a complex set of attacks on the United States personnel and others. This is why from the outset, I’ve repeatedly said that this mission was extraordinarily dangerous, which is why I was so determined to limit the duration of this mission.”

Okay, same problem. The content was fine. That’s the information the public needs to understand. Again, however, the language choice got in Biden’s way. Passive sentences like “we’ve been made aware,” tedious phrases like “from our intelligence community,” and adverbs like “extraordinarily” slow the listener down. If you are reading a speech, you can slow down, think about the big words, and sort out what the speaker is saying, but we can’t do that when we are listening to a speech.


So, Would Something Like This Be Better?

• What Biden could have said, but didn’t. Our experts have briefed me about ISIS-K. They are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. They are the ones who planned the horrible suicide bombing in Kabul. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Policy speakers often do well to use parallel language. That’s why the “this is why…this is why” above works in speech better than it does in writing. So…

• Would this have been even more forceful? What Biden could have said, but didn’t. ISIS-K are the Taliban’s arch-enemy. The former president let them out of prison at the same time as he freed the Taliban prisoners. ISIS-K has planned many attacks against the United States and our friends. ISIS-K planned the horrible suicide bombing. ISIS-K is planning even more terrible deeds. This is why I said from the start that this mission is risky. That is why we need to set a deadline.

Again, when we speak, we tend to use simpler words. “Planned many attacks” instead of “planning a complex set of attacks.” The longer phrase sounds like something a government official would write in a formal report. That is not, however, how most people talk. “Risky” is better than “extraordinarily dangerous,” which uses two words to say what you could say in one word. (Plus, a public relations friend of mine said that if you use an adverb, like “extraordinarily,” it means you’ve chosen the wrong verb. I try to remember that; it’s hard!) Let’s not call the victims “others;” let’s call them “friends,” for that is what they are. And why would anyone want to hear words like “duration of this mission?” Also, instead of the passive “were opened,” which dilutes responsibility, shouldn’t he remind us that the former president ordered the prisoner release?

Speakers Making Points

Language style matters. Think about how Franklin Roosevelt raised his points after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: “a day which will live in infamy.” Not only did Roosevelt make his point, but he made sure that everybody knew what he meant. He gave the press a memorable phrase that pointed out exactly whose fault the Pearl Harbor raid was.

Franklin Roosevelt's War Speech

Or consider the sharp language that Biden himself used not long ago when he talked about the new coronavirus variant:

“My fellow Americans, this nation has never failed when we have come together as the United States of America. So I say to all those who are unvaccinated: Please — please get vaccinated.”

Isn’t that sharp, clear, and forceful? An audience is more likely to think that Biden is forceful if he uses strong, simple language. “Say what you mean, and mean what you say” – that’s how tough guys talk, and it is good advice for all of us.

Biden's Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership 


Showing Strength

Later in the speech, Biden began to sound strong when he spoke in a more Biden-like manner:

“We will not be deterred by terrorists. We will not let them stop our mission. We will continue the evacuation.”

That was sharp and excellent. Three parallel sentences (audiences love to hear three things) itemized the United States’ plans in a way that promised listeners that no one would interrupt those plans.

Finally, right at the end, Biden did a great job of promising that Americans would all be rescued from Afghanistan:

“We will find them, and we will get them out.”

That was a simple, bold statement. He needed that kind of clarity all through the speech. Sometimes, too much explanation just makes a speaker sound weak. In a time of crisis, people want assurances. People want results. “We will find them, and we will get them out” promised results. And, in fact fulfilling the promise, the United States soon assassinated the ISIS-K leader with a drone strike.


What Went Wrong with This Speech?

We can be charitable, of course. The crisis is ongoing, and Biden had little time to work on the speech. He probably wasn’t sleeping much. He and his speechwriters probably didn’t have enough time for meetings and revision. But, then again, neither did Franklin Roosevelt with his Pearl Harbor speech, and he got the job done.

In a time of crisis, Americans look to the president for leadership. That leadership often comes from speaking. Speeches can matter more than actions! Biden performed actions of strength, power, and competence. Indeed, I think that most of the criticism of his Afghan policy is unfair and opportunistic. This is a war, and nothing in war goes smoothly. The enemy can always veto your plans. In this rhetorical situation, however, the speaker’s word choice and sentence construction can show as much as the actual actions. Roosevelt’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” reassured people. Biden’s “This is why our mission was designed the way it was designed” did not.


Oral Style Versus Written Style

Let’s return to oral style versus written style. A long out-of-print public speaking book by John F. Wilson and Caroll C. Arnold offers a lengthy description of the difference between oral and written style. For example, oral style uses more sentence fragments and the sentences vary much more in length. Speakers use more imagery than writers. Speakers repeat themselves much more often than writers do. A well-written essay often sounds thick and pretentious if someone reads it out loud. Some top speechwriters actually dictate their drafts to a secretary (or, nowadays, into a computer) so their first words will express spoken thoughts. English speakers often use more short, blunt Anglo-Saxon words and fewer Latin-root words when they speak, as opposed to when they are writing. Speech and writing both use the same language, but they don’t use it in the same way. When it’s time to be forceful, as during an international crisis, it’s time to use oral style.


Conclusion

Biden said many good things in this speech. He expressed grief for the lives lost. He talked about his personal experience as a veteran’s father. He reminded the audience that the rescue efforts had brought more than 100,000 Americans and their allies to safety in a matter of days. He praised the heroes who made it possible. All that is good, solid public speaking.

So, as I said at the outset, Biden said all the right things. He didn’t need high flights of beautiful language. The speech was a policy briefing. This occasion needed plain, blunt language to give us information, while reminding us about what we care about. The speaker needed to sound strong and resolute.

Now, sounding strong and resolute does not mean that a speaker should rage or use foul language. It means to speak in a straightforward way, to choose words wisely, and to use language that people will grasp. It means to say things that people will understand and remember.

No public speaker excels every time. Even Abraham Lincoln gave an occasional boring speech. Speakers need to know, however, that it is not only what you say – it’s also how you say it – that makes a difference.



Research Note: Wilson and Arnold’s book, Public Speaking as a Liberal Art, is long out of print. That’s a shame, for it is one of the best public speaking textbooks ever written. You might find the first edition in a large university library or used bookstore. Later versions, often revised by other authors, sometimes pop up on the used book market. 

By the way, classical writers taught that language style was one of the five elements, or canons, of public speaking. The ancient Roman authors called style elocutio. They talked about what they called the “Asian style,” which was formal and flowery, and the “Attic style,” which was simple and plain. It would be fine for Biden to use the Attic style in a speech. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that he used something more like a bureaucrat's style. Maybe we could call it the “Pentagon style.” No one needs that. 

Image: White House YouTube channel