Speaking Flattery to Power...
Barry Rubin has an excellent analysis of Obama's speech....
Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo is one of the most bizarre orations ever made by a U.S. president, not a foreign policy statement but rather something invented by Obama, an international campaign speech, as if his main goal was to obtain votes in the next Egyptian primary.
That approach defined Obama’s basic themes: Islam’s great. America is good. We’re sorry. Be moderate (not that you haven’t always been that way). Let’s be friends.
Here, Obama followed the idea that if you want someone to like you agree with almost everything he says. Obama also gave, albeit with some minor variations, the speech that the leader of a Third World Muslim country might give, justifying it in advance by claiming America is a big Muslim country, after all.
Of course, the speech had tremendous—though temporary—appeal combined with its counterproductive strategic impact. It will make him more popular. It may well make America somewhat less unpopular. But its effect on Middle East issues and U.S. interests is another matter entirely.
The first problem is that Obama said many things factually quite untrue, some ridiculously so. Pages would be required to list all these inaccuracies. The interesting question is whether Obama consciously lied or really believes it. I’d prefer him to be lying, because if he’s that ignorant then America and the world is in very deep trouble.
If he really believes Islam’s social role is so perfect, radical Islamists are a tiny minority, Palestinians have suffered hugely through no fault of their own, and so on, then he’s living in a fantasy world. Unfortunately, we are not. The collision between reality and dream is going to be a terrible one.
The second problem is the speech’s unnecessarily extreme one-sidedness. Obama portrays the West as the guilty party. Despite a reference to September 11—even that presented as an American misdeed, unfair dislike of Islam resulting—he gave not a single example of Islamist or Muslim responsibility for anything wrong in the world.
Obama could easily have made the same points in a balanced way: you’ve made mistakes; we’ve made mistakes. You’ve done things to us; we’ve done things to you. And having established that I respect you, let me tell you how Americans feel and what’s needed.
But that’s not how he chose to do it. So afraid was Obama of giving offense—and thus not maximizing his popularity-at-all–costs mission—he did the political equivalent of scoring an own-goal. President Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” In effect, Obama declared, “We’re your pain.”
So if Muslims are always the innocent victims, isn't Usama bin Ladin and others correct in saying that all the violence and terrorism to date has been just a "defensive Jihad" against external aggression and thus justifiable? Why should anything change simply because Obama has "admitted" this and asked to start over again?
When he cited examples of oppression, Obama listed only Bosnia (where he didn’t even mention the U.S. role in helping Muslims), along with Israel, and also the Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Darfur. He didn’t mention terrorist violence and mistreatement of non-Muslims by Muslims in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Sudan, the Gaza Strip, against Israel, Europe or even Egypt itself.
This is a hallmark of the kind of thinking dominating much contemporary Western thought extending something that works in their own societies-- where self-criticism, apology, and unilateral concessions really can lead to the other side forgiving and compromising--to places where it doesn't work.
In the Middle East if you say you’re to blame, that communicates to the other side that their cause is right and they're entitled to everything it wants. If you apologize, you’re weak. Sure, some relatively Westernized urban liberals will take what Obama said that way, I doubt whether radical states and political forces, as well as the masses, will do so.
5 Comments:
I can't agree, and I think this is drivel. Obama didn't cast the West as "the guilty party", but threw a lot of guilt around on everyone.
Arab boosters and Israel boosters all see something one-sided in the speech -- moderates on both sides seemed to get it, from all the reaction that I've read, and that means that, as per usual, partisans (like yourself) can only see one side, and the rest of us can see a much bigger picture.
Don't get me wrong -- I am as 100% opposed to radical extremist Islam as you are; I think I sent you the link to Obsession when I first found it, before you arranged it's Ottawa screening (you may have heard about it elsewhere before, I'm not trying to claim credit for introducing you to it, just to point out my equal scorn for Islamic killer thugs).
We can only beat Al-Quaeda with the help and assistance of moderate Islamists, and they DO exist, contrary to what the quoted writer smugly claims (no, Obama never said they were a "tiny" minority). Without the help of the Arab street, who is as under as much physical threat from Al-Quaeda as America or Toronto or London or anywhere else, I can't see us winning this fight.
George W. Bush himself grasped this piece of the problem when he asked an aide in astonishment backstage at an overseas speech, "Do they really believe we hate Islam???"
Of course America doesn't hate Islam, and of course Bush himself doesn't hate Islam. He was the first President that I'm aware of to say, over and over, "Islam is a religion of peace".
Obama's only trying a new tack on the same message Bush attempted to spread to the Islamic world.
Now, perhaps you opposed Bush's overtures to Muslims -- I'm not a daily reader, so perhaps your stance here is actually consistent.
It's not that the US hates Islam...it's the other way around. Islam hates the west.
George Bush was wrong. Islam is not the religion of peace. It is an ideology that is after world domination.
Considering how many Muslims there are in America, loyal to America, I consider your statement interesting.
I agree there is a strain of Islam that is, quite plainly, evil (my words, not putting any in your mouth).
I do think there are Muslims who wish for peace, and will accept other religions and atheists and agnostics as equals. I think it's an important part of the battle against evil extremists to befriend and encourage these peaceful Muslims.
But Fred, if you're as critical of Bush's outreach to Muslims as Obama's (and you are), then you're certainly consistent, and I totally respect that.
You confuse Islam and Muslims. Yes, there are millions of muslims who want nothing more than a peaceful world who hate violence.
I know that.
But, the ideology of Islam preaches domination, pure and simple. There are NO strains of Islam that preach tolerance - quite the contrary - Islam says that infidels must be killed and that the only people who can enjoy peace are Muslims.
The sad fact is that those millions of peaceful muslims won't stand up, because they know the truth about Islam.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home