Look at the smoke in the distance!

Semiotics is the study of symbols that communicate as loudly as any words.  Sometimes they are gestures or icons, such as the international symbol for no smoking, but sometimes they are colors, a general topic, or an unusual acronym.  When someone deals in semiotics, words are distracters to the real message being communicated.

Consider the president's speech last night.  The first element to notice was the reason he was giving the speech.  He was assuring the people he was president for that everything was under control.  In order to make that believable, he would have to have a certain amount of energy when delivering the statement.  If the delivery is devoid of emotion, which was the case last night, the signal is different, subliminal, encrypted.  It's a contraindicator of some other message.  It could be something simple like he was forced to give the people some kind of sign that the government cared about what had happened in a terrorist attack, don't make the Democrats look bad in an election year, or it could be something deliberate and dark like whoever the message was for could discern from the lack of energy that the message was opposite from the words being delivered.  In this case, the opposite would be to notify the terrorists that the incident at San Bernadino and the rhetoric of the speech were for the American people only, not business as usual regarding his mid-eastern policy.

The second element to consider was the acronym the president used to refer to the main terrorist group.  The modern reference continues to be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.  However, the word translated Syria is al Sham (still an S for the acronym), a reference to an area of Islamic control used before the advent of all the modern states divided into their current idiosyncratic ideologies for running their separate countries.  So under the guise of giving a better translation for al Sham, the president has translated the words as the Levant, also an older term used for the mid-eastern region before Israel was in the after World War II.  On the surface, it would appear that one is just a better literal translation than the other.  But if semiotic analysis is used, the Levant is used to assure the Islamic states that Israel is not being recognized and, perhaps, to continue with their plans of harassment in the area.

The third element for analysis is found in the objects of the setting.  Behind the president, on either side of him was a flag.  On the left side, as a viewer would see the president speak was the American flag.  That would be expected.  He is giving a speech for Americans to rally around.  On the left side was the president's official flag.  The flag has an official design which would include the colors to be used for it.  The color blue is supposed to be the color of the field upon which the president's emblem superimposed.  Last night the color of the flag's field was a dark blue, but the lighting was so dark many times the field looked black.  Considering other elements of the speech, the lighting was significant.  Black (perceived or real) would match the color of the field of the flag that I.S.I.S. uses.  In addition, black is one of the featured stripes in the flags of Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Afhanistan, and Iraq.  It would be a show of solidarity to match an American flag to the Islamic state(s).

Finally, the topic the president used to gain a platform for a speech on national television was one of comfort to the families of the fallen and assurance to Americans of unfailing vigilance against terrorism.  However, in the midst of such a topic, the president decided to give a defense of Islam as a peaceful religion.  That is so far afield from comfort and reassurance that to insert that defense in such a speech would have no other purpose than to fan the flame of hostility within his country and to assure the Islamic countries that nothing is really changing even though the rhetoric was different in other portions of the speech.  The defense wasn't a mere mentioning of Islam in general, it was placed in two different parts of the speech to be a contraindicator in those two sections.

It doesn't go without notice that the speech was delivered the day before Pearl Harbor Day.  How much more reassuring could a president be than to talk of the San Bernadino massacre in the context of attacks by America's enemies.  It was not an error that the president didn't want to categorize this shooting in that context since he didn't want any mid-eastern states to construe his remarks to mean that they were Amercia's enemies.  So, separate the two speeches he was to give - one for America's enemies on Pearl Harbor Day and one for the "workplace attack" in San Bernadino.  Careful scheduling matches all the other elements about the message conveyed on television last night.

Smoke and mirrors.  It was the ole trick, "Hey, look over there!" while I steal your valuables right under your nose.  It's a common ruse.  That's why semiotic communication has invaluable use.  And it's why semiotic analysis exists at all.  The speech contained comfort and assurance, but for more than the American people.  I'm thinking people know all of this about the president already.  This is not the first time he has played his hand.  But, it certainly corroborates what people are thinking.