Posted on 01/28/2009 5:05:30 AM PST by Tolik
President Barack Obama is being praised for choosing an Arabic TV network for his first formal television interview on the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel. I think we can all appreciate the thinking behind such bold outreach, given that the media at home has chortled to the world that our new guy’s unusual background, in sort of Zen-fashion, has befuddled the radical Islamic movement.
The subtext of our satisfaction has been that Obama—African-American, son of a Muslim father, erstwhile resident of Muslim Indochina, with Hussein as his middle name—makes it far harder for the Arab Islamic world to typecast America unfairly as the Great Satan than would be true in the case of an evangelical, Texas-drawling, hard-core conservative Chief Executive like good ‘ole boy George Bush.
True enough, no doubt.
But triangulation is a touchy art and it takes the genius of a Dick Morris cum soulless Bill Clinton to pull off such disingenuousness. In less experienced hands it can be explosive and turn on its user. And Obama will soon learn the dangerous game he is playing. Consider:
1). When abroad it is not wise to criticize your own country and praise the antithetical world view of another—especially if yours is a democratic republic and the alternative is a theocratic monarchy that has a less than liberal record on human rights, treatment of women and homosexuals, and tolerance for religious plurality.
But here’s what Obama said:
“… All too often the United States starts by dictating…in the past on some of these issues…and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen…Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia…I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage…to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”
The end, if unintended, result is that the Saudi King comes across as courageous, while the U.S. President and State Department (e.g., “the United States”) are portrayed as dictatorial-like (“dictating”) in the region.
2). An unspoken rule of American statesmanship is not to be overtly partisan abroad. And in Obama’s case it is high time to arrest the campaign mode, cease the implied “Bush did it” (which ipso facto has a short shelf life), and begin dealing with the world as it is, rather than the world you feel was unfairly presented to you by someone more blameworthy in the past. But again consider:
“But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task… And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs… but I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I’m speaking to them, as well.”
Perhaps. But once again, the impression comes across as ‘past America bad /present and future America good.’ (Even the senior George Bush learned that lesson at home with his serial “kinder, gentler nation” [e.g., kinder than what?]). And nothing is offered here (other than our lack of a colonial past) about the actual impressive record: amazing American good will in saving Kuwait, objecting to the Kuwaiti deportations of thousands of Palestinians, speaking out against Russia on behalf of the Chechens, trying to save the Somalis, bombing a Christian European Serbia to save the Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims, helping the Afghans against the Soviets, removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and trying to invest a $1 trillion in fostering democracy in their places, billions in disease relief for black (and often Muslim) Africa, timely help to the Muslim victims of the tsunami, and liberal immigration laws that welcome in millions of Arabs and/or Muslims. I could go on but you get the picture left out that America, far better than China, Russia, or Europe, has been quite friendly to the Muslim world.
Instead the supposition is that somehow the culpability is largely ours—and therefore ours to rectify. In fact, the widespread hatred in the Islamic world, manifested, and sometime applauded, on September 11, was largely a result of the failures of indigenous autocracy—whether in the past Pan-Arabist, Baathist, theocratic and Islamic, Nasserite, or pro-Soviet statism.
Such repression and failed economic policies, coupled with the sudden ability of a long-suffering populace in a globalized world to fathom that things were bad in the Middle East but no so bad elsewhere, led to growing anger and frustration. That state megaphones (in a devil’s bargain with radical Islamists) preached that the real culprit of general Muslim misery was neither Islamic terrorism nor state dictators nor gender apartheid nor religious intolerance nor state-run economies, but solely the fault of America and the Jews hardly helped.
We should also remember that the Bush record was often quite good: we have not been hit in over seven years; Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation was stopped; Libya gave up its nuclear program; Syria is out of Lebanon; Hamas and Hezbollah have suffered a great deal of damage as a result of their aggressions; there are constitutional governments at work in place of the Taliban and Saddam; the leadership of al Qaeda is scattered and depleted and its brand is diminished in Iraq. The fact that Middle East authoritarian governments might not like all of that; or that radical Muslims find this disturbing; or even that the spokesmen for the unfree populations of the Arab world object—simply does not change the truth. I wish President Obama better appreciated that simple fact, because he surely is a beneficiary of it.
3). Beware of the dangerous two-step. For nearly two years the unspoken rule of the campaign (ask former Senator Bob Kerry or Hillary Clinton herself or talk-show host Bill Cunningham) was that mentioning Obama’s Muslim ancestry was taboo. It was illiberal to evoke his Muslim-sounding name or his Indonesian ancestry, as if one were deliberately trying to suggest his multicultural fides made him less appealing to the square majority in America. But Obama apparently himself is immune to such prohibitions—at least abroad. If he appreciates the off-limits landscape at home, overseas it is suddenly to be showcased to reemphasize his global, multicultural and less parochial credentials. E.g., it comes off as something like: ‘between you and me—typical Americans could not relate to you the way I can—even though back in America to even suggest that I am not typical is sometimes the greatest of sins—albeit in the manner I adjudicate.’ Consider again:
“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries…The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith — and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers — regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.”
4). At some point, soaring rhetoric makes banality the harder to accept. For all the talking about path- breaking new/old envoy George Mitchell, and the new President’s background, and the novel sensitivity, Obama offered nothing new on the Middle East and Iran, because (1) there is very little new to be offered; and (2) George Bush, apart from the caricatures, was by 2004 about as multilateral as one can be; consider the Quartet, the EU3, the UN efforts at international disarmament with Iran, the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Coalition in Iraq, the efforts to promote constitutional government in the Middle East, and on and on.
There is a danger here that Obama’s hope and change on the Middle East will start to resemble his hope and change on new governance in Washington: utopian promises about absolutely new ethics, followed by the same old, same old as exemplified by the ethical problems encountered by Geithner, Holder, Lynn, Richardson—and by extension Blago, Dodd, Frank, and Rangel. Again, saintly rhetoric only highlights earthly behavior.
I am glad Obama confounds the radical and hostile Islamic world, if it is in fact true that he does. But we are witnessing a delicate balancing act in which he seems to be saying to us “I am best representing you by distancing myself from you and your past”.
Again, that may well work, but also in time may prove not to be what Americans thought they were voting for. So a final Neanderthal thought: some of us would like our President in calm, polite and diplomatic tones to emphasize the past positive Middle East work of his predecessor Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He should make the case that the United States has tried hard and will try hard again to promote peace in the Middle East, but that certain fundamental facts make that awfully difficult, and often are beyond our control, resting largely in the decisions that others make for themselves—and the inevitable reactions that will follow from a liberal democracy like our own, faced with clear signs of religious intolerance, illiberality, violent aggression, and complicity in the promotion of terror as a political means. In other words, I think Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Pakistan—and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others—know exactly what are they doing and thus the problems that arise between us transcend occasional and unfortunate smoke ‘em out/bring ‘em on lingo.
Just a modest thought.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Obama - results are in! Come and get it!
Iranian leader demands US apology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855444.stm
What I find humorous, and disturbing, is the during the election the nobama campaign removed women in ethnic muslim garb from out of frame during speeches, and screamed “BIGOT...RACIST” anytime any one mentioned his muslim ties. They did everything in their power to distance the candidate from his muslim heritage.
Now, in his very first sit down interview; even before a US network got one, it’s muslims, muslims EVERYWHERE in nobama’s background on a muslim news channel. Nary a peep from the media that propped up this phony during the campaign, either.
Frauds, all of them.
The Saudi’s got Obama into Harvard Law by paying for a new building at Harvard. Quid pro quo. Obama’s been bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention George Soros, Acorn, and millions of dead voters. Oops, we’re not to mention fraud anymore. Sorry.
I love VDH.
If there is a clearer-thinking writer on the American - and world - political landscape I have yet to read him. Every column a gem.
This is such a sweet, delicious fact, like a big boulder in the road that high velocity Bush haters always smash into. I've heard a couple of them melt down when this is pointed out to them.
"In an interview with one of the Middle East's major broadcasters, President Barack Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that 'the Americans are not your enemy,' " the New York Times reports. "The interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language news channel based in Dubai, signaled a shift--in style and manner at least--from the Bush administration."
Obama also addressed Muslims directly, saying, "We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful." Can you imagine George W. Bush saying anything like that?
Oh wait, sorry, Homer nods: That last quote was from Bush's speech on Sept. 20, 2001.
Still, the pace of change is just dizzying! OK, so it's not so much what Obama said, but where he said it. Bush would never have given an interview to Al Aribiya.
Darn it, we messed up again! The Associated Press reports that "Obama's choice of Al-Arabiya network, which is owned by a Saudi businessman, follows the lead of the Bush administration, which gave several presidential interviews to that news channel."
Even so, change is all around us! As the AP notes, the new president's policies are completely different:
Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Bush just went around launching wars for no reason! It's not as if these wars were provoked by an attack on America or an invasion of a neighboring country, or else the AP would have mentioned it. Obama, by contrast, just wants to give peace a chance, as another Associated Press dispatch notes:
Obama is expected to double the number of American troops in Afghanistan this year, as the country becomes one of his foreign policy priorities.
The Washington Post reports that "the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same." Good luck with that, guys!
That is a priceless book cover. And he has lived with them.
worth reading
I'm inclined to believe this. It'll be easier to do if I can see something to corroborate it.
If you read the Al-Arabiya interview, Obama says that he has ‘lived in Muslim countries.’
He used the PLURAL. Think about it.
I can only repeat my tagline: “Please God, save the United States from the Democrats,” and I might add: Barack Hussein Obama. “Amen”.
BUMP!!!!
—put me on the VDH ping list , please—
He always makes too much sense to be taken seriously in Washington.
The argument from Osama bin Laden that America is a “weak horse” was one of the most crucial in his decision to attack America back then and there. Regardless of how it was framed in words by our allies and enemies, the whole idea of American response was to demonstrate that we are the “strong horse” and the jihadists are the weak one.
Every step of the way this message was misserved or outright attacked by our own media, and by international media, following its example. The world would have been much more safer place already if enemies of the West knew, that the West can’t be clobbered into a submission by a low level terror with an occasional bigger success and by clever propaganda playing on the west’s own sensitivities (absent in the Islamists world of course).
The examples you posted highlight quite well that big chunk of media is capable only to play hate-Bush-love-Obama game and can’t do serious analysis of serious issues.
added to the VDH ping list
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.