Biden's August 31, 2021 Speech about Afghanistan: Did He Reset the Agenda? Maybe Not

Joe Biden, White House Photo

President Joe Biden’s August 31, 2021 speech defending the withdrawal of United States military forces from Afghanistan hit the right points as he tried to reset the public agenda. Although Biden gave a good speech, the press continues to flail at him and his public support seems to have dropped. What did he do right in this speech? What did he do wrong? What are his long-term rhetorical prospects? How can he reset the agenda? 

My response: Biden said the right things, but a bit too late, a bit too defensively, and, well, just not enough. That is, he is not controlling the public agenda.

When they wrote about public speaking, the ancient Greek writers talked about timeliness. A speaker must speak at the right time. The right time for Biden’s speech, unfortunately, was a couple weeks earlier. August 31 was the right time for his sixth or seventh speech about the withdrawal.


What Did Biden’s Speech Do Right?

To start, let’s look at the President’s masterful introduction:

“Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history.

“We completed one of the biggest airlifts in history, with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts thought were possible. No nation — no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history. Only the United States had the capacity and the will and the ability to do it, and we did it today.

“The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravery, and selfless courage of the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professionals.”

Let us think about what Biden (and his speechwriting team) did right in that introduction. First, he talked about the end of the war, noting how long it was. He phrased that as an accomplishment, not a defeat. Second, in the face of relentless criticism of the supposedly chaotic airlift, he noted that 120,000 people were evacuated, and that the number was more than twice what anyone had predicted or promised. That’s a success, and he mentioned right away. Third, he shared the credit, thanking the military, intelligence, and diplomatic people who made the evacuation possible. What Biden did right: he hit his main point sharply and clearly, right away.

Continuing the speech, Biden defended the American response, insisting that the United States was prepared for the collapse of the Afghan government:

“But I still instructed our national security team to prepare for every eventuality — even that one. And that’s what we did.

“So, we were ready when the Afghan Security Forces — after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own — did not hold on as long as anyone expected.”

Next, refuting another criticism made against his policies, Biden discussed the small number of Americans who had not yet been evacuated. He pointed out that most of them had dual citizenship in Afghanistan and the United States, and that they had been reluctant to evacuate earlier. This deflected blame from people who attacked him for not getting those people out of the country.

“Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long-time residents who had earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan.”

Continuing, Biden proceeded to give his listeners an excellent soundbite. News reporters tend to focus on what seems newsworthy, rather than what is important. Short, pithy phrases get quoted:

“I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit.”

That was a short pithy, quotable sentence. Good for Biden.


Did the Speech Make Any Rhetorical Mistakes? Oh, Yes

At the end, however, Biden did get a little bit too defensive. To defend his policies, Biden had two reasonable choices. He could have told people that he was making the right decision. Or he could have said that it was the wrong decision, but it was Trump’s fault. It doesn’t make much sense to argue both. Yet, that is what he did:

“The fact is: Everything had changed. My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline — May 1. The Taliban onslaught was coming.”

That was probably true, but Biden failed to demonstrate strength. If the withdrawal is right, Biden should say so. If it is wrong, but Trump’s fault, the public may wonder why Biden didn’t fix the problem. After all, we think that presidents have limitless power, do we not? And the withdrawal can't be both right and wrong. 

 
Was the Speech Timely?

Timing is everything in rhetoric. The public has been inundated with images of smoke and explosions, screaming people, and robed, bearded warriors swarming around Kabul. The President’s critics had, for days, attacked his every real and perceived mistake, whether large or small.

On the one hand, yes, the president’s #1 job is to manage things, not to justify them. I am sure that Biden has been working overtime to oversee the military, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies. That’s important. On the other hand, part of the President’s job in a constitutional republic is to communicate with the public. People need to know what’s going on. Even if the public does not understand the situation, they want to feel confident that somebody is at the helm. This speech, given a week earlier, could have accomplished that. But it was too late. With images of catastrophe flooding the television, the speech was no longer enough to restore public confidence.

In other words, if Biden had given this speech a week or so earlier, the message could have been: “Here is what we plan to do and why it is right.”

However, with this speech given near the evacuation’s end, the message was more like: “I know it looks like I messed up, but I really didn’t.”

That is, the words would have been much the same a week or two ago, but the public would have received a different message. And, indeed, the press did call Biden’s speech defensive. (Strangely enough, Tucker Carlson, who is usually one of Biden’s harshest critics, praised Biden for withdrawing from Afghanistan.)


Is It Too Late? Can President Biden Recover?

Let us leave it to the historians to judge whether Biden made right or wrong decisions about Afghanistan. I suspect they will be far more charitable than today’s news reporters, but time will tell. So far, the press seems more interested in what the Afghanistan withdrawal means for upcoming elections than they do about the withdrawal itself. News reporters today say little about substance. The President – any president – needs to refocus their attention.

The history of presidential rhetoric suggests two courses that Biden could take to recover in the public’s perceptions. First, he could give many more speeches on the same theme. That would keep his agenda on the public’s mind. When President William McKinley wanted to sell the unpopular peace treaty that followed the Spanish-American war, he took an extensive railroad speaking tour across the South – the region where he faced the greatest opposition. He traveled with a collection of Confederate war heroes, and took time to honor the Confederate war dead. McKinley’s speaking tour did much to defuse the South’s hatred of him and somewhat moderated their opposition to the treaty. Now, the pandemic makes a railroad (or airplane) tour impractical today, but Biden could surely reach out more to the public – and reach out more to his political opponents – to sell his argument, over and over. Public support does not come automatically. Presidents need to work for it. Sadly, having good policies is not enough. The President needs to set the public agenda. The President surely cannot stay quiet for days on end while the press sets the agenda.

Second, Biden could give many speeches about his administration’s other accomplishments. That would place his presidency in context. Yes, Biden does speak about his successes. However, he is not pounding away about them. A president is not just an administrator. The president commands the bully pulpit. The president needs to use the bully pulpit – over, over, and over. As a best-selling novelist said, once is never enough.

When a president excels at policymaking – like Biden, like Obama, like Reagan, like Clinton, like Franklin Roosevelt – the president must sell the policies. Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clinton understood that. FDR never let the press control the agenda about Pearl Harbor. Biden seems to be getting the idea slowly.

Biden’s speech was a good start. It was wise that he gave it. He needs to give many more speeches like this. If you are as good a speaker as Abraham Lincoln, you can give a handful of speeches and succeed. If you’re a mere mortal, like all other presidents, you need quantity as well as quality. So, Biden needed to give this speech at least a week earlier – to show that he was on top of things. He needs to give many more speeches like this one. And he can’t be so defensive – if the buck stops in the Oval Office, well, that’s where the buck needs to stop.

__________________________________________________

More: Biden's Speech About the Kabul Bombing

More: Biden Uses the Bully Pulpit

More: Franklin Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech

__________________________________________________

Research Note: Chapter 9 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign talks about timeliness in public speaking. The ancient Greek writers called this "kairos." Now available in paperback, this book can also be found in most university libraries. I talked about McKinley’s speaking tours in "William McKinley and the Emergence of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency." I also discussed McKinley’s railroad tour speeches in an unpublished convention paper; you can read it here. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see more links.

P.S. About the Pearl Harbor meme: yes, I know that Pearl Harbor and Washington are not in the same time zone. Call it artistic license.

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