Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Audacity of Hoax: Obama and the Islamic World
found at...http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg325248.html
When Barack Obama was running for President in 2008, he wanted, first and
foremost, to be different from George W. Bush who was despised by a large
majority of people everywhere on this planet. Obama had opposed the illegal
invasion of Iraq, and during his campaign he continued to criticize the
invasion and its aftermath. He also criticized the Bush administration for
what he considered as its neglect of the "right war" (if there is such a
war), namely, the war in Afghanistan. And, while the Bush administration had
a relentless program of propaganda and threats against Iran for eight years,
Obama offered to negotiate with Iran without any pre-conditions.
Candidate Obama also made some remarks about the plight of the Palestinian
people that made right-wing Israelis uneasy. His relentless talk of change
had the Jewish leaders in the United States worried that the change he was
talking about would also permeate to the policy of the United States toward
Israel. In short, candidate Obama promised that the relation between the
United States and the Islamic world would change for the better, if he was
elected the President, presumably because Bush had brought so much
destruction and bloodshed to the Muslims.
Then, on June 4, 2009, President Obama spoke directly to the Islamic world
to outline his new policy toward the Muslims. Calling it a new beginning,
and speaking to the Egyptian parliament in Cairo, the President made many
promises to the Muslims. This was hailed by many as a turning point in the
relations between the United States and the Islamic world.
But, was it, really? A little over a year has passed since the Cairo speech
and, therefore, it is time to examine whether the relations between the
United States and the Islamic world have improved, or are about the same as
during the George W. Bush administration, or they have actually deteriorated
further.
But, before getting into the specifics, I ask, why was the speech delivered
in Cairo? Was it because Egypt is the bastion of democracy and respect for
human rights and human dignity in the Middle East or in the Islamic world?
It is not. Egypt has been ruled by President Hosni Mubarak with an iron fist
since 1981 under emergency rule, imposed after Anwar El Sadat was
assassinated. Mubarak has been "re-elected" numerous times in sham
elections. Dissidents and human rights advocates have been harassed, jailed,
and tortured, and many political parties have been banned. Egypt has also
been a destination for some of the people captured by the CIA through its
extraordinary rendition program.
Could the President not deliver his speech to, for example, the Turkish
parliament? After all, Turkey is a large Muslim country with a functioning
democracy and run by a political party that has its roots in Islam. In June
2009 Turkey was still considered a reliable ally of the United States and
Israel even by the neoconservatives. It had not yet been the target of the
wrath of the neocons, at it has become now due to the Freedom Flotilla
episode.
Could the President not deliver his speech in Bangladesh, a Muslim country
that, despite being dirt poor, does have a functioning democracy and elected
the first female prime minister, Khaleda Zia, in the Islamic world? How
about Indonesia, a Muslim country where the President had spent years and
has a more or less democratic system, certainly much better than anything
that Egypt has? It is hard to imagine that an intelligent man like the
President did not understand the implications of his choice of Cairo for
delivering his speech. But, aside from the symbolic meaning of that choice,
we need to look at what the President and his administration have done to
Muslims and the Islamic world ever since he took over in January 2009. I
look at this at the levels of both Muslim individuals and Islamic countries.
Let us consider first the developments at the country-to-country level.
Iraq: The U.S. still has a sizeable force there. And, do not forget: The
troops that have left Iraq have been dispatched to Afghanistan; they have
not come home! All "non-combat" troops are supposed to leave by this summer,
but what will be left behind will still be very significant, at a level of
50,000 troops. The humongous U.S. embassy - a mini state within the state of
Iraq - was not scaled back by the Obama administration. Permanent military
bases have been secured, and the control of Iraq's oil by the U.S. is
assured. So, expect conflicts for many years to come, once Iraq's political
system is a bit more stable.
Afghanistan: Obama has delivered on his promise regarding Afghanistan, which
is, however, contradictory to the spirit of the Cairo speech. During his
campaign in 2008 he repeatedly promised that he would escalate the war in
Afghanistan, and he has. He has sent a large number of additional troops to
Afghanistan, with no end in sight. Many doubt that the strategy of General
Stanley McChrystal for defeating the Taliban will succeed. And, despite the
presence of 100000 NATO troops, including the U.S. forces, Taliban have
proven resilient.
The much touted Helmand offensive in February and March that was supposed to
have cleared a significant part of Afghanistan from Taliban's control was
not the success that it was made to be, and those parts of Afghanistan are
in fact still under Taliban control. And, the Kandahar offensive for this
spring was also postponed, or perhaps cancelled altogether, because there
was much pessimism about its effectiveness. Even Admiral Mike Mullen,
Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said "we are all angst" about the
course of the war. And, now, there are new allegations that portions of a
$2.1 billion Pentagon contract may be going to pay "protection" money to
Taliban and warlord groups in Afghanistan.
The NATO alliance is also tired. The Netherlands will withdraw its 1600
troops by August. Canada, which has 2800 troops in Afghanistan, will end its
combat role next year. David Cameron, Britain's new prime minister, has
expressed his support for the war, but has ruled out sending more troops.
Other NATO members want the alliance to draw a plan for exiting Afghanistan.
All the talks about training the Afghan soldiers and transferring the
control to the Afghan government are just that: talks. Soon, the President
must decide whether his self-imposed summer 2011 for beginning to withdraw
U.S. troops is, in fact, tenable. In fact, I believe that, now that a huge
deposit of minerals worth at least $1 trillion has been discovered in
Afghanistan, you can bet your house that the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan
for years to come. That will mean only more bloodshed and destruction. The
total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has surpassed $1 trillion,
while the economy here at home is languishing.
Aside from the military aspects, the U.S. did nothing when the corrupt and
incompetent Hamid Karzai stole the elections last year from his highly
competent rival Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. His government is weak and utterly
corrupt. Washington tolerates the close relations between Karzai's brother,
Ahmed Vali, with the drug lords. There is hardly a week in which we do not
hear about a significant number of innocent civilians getting killed,
wounded, and maimed by the U.S. and NATO forces. Wikileaks has promised to
release new videos on attacks in Afghanistan. Thus, the way the war in
Afghanistan is going, do not be surprised if the majority of Afghans are
nostalgic about the security that the Taliban had brought them. The war has
no military solution, but our enlightened President is pursuing one.
the rest of the article is at the url at the top....
When Barack Obama was running for President in 2008, he wanted, first and
foremost, to be different from George W. Bush who was despised by a large
majority of people everywhere on this planet. Obama had opposed the illegal
invasion of Iraq, and during his campaign he continued to criticize the
invasion and its aftermath. He also criticized the Bush administration for
what he considered as its neglect of the "right war" (if there is such a
war), namely, the war in Afghanistan. And, while the Bush administration had
a relentless program of propaganda and threats against Iran for eight years,
Obama offered to negotiate with Iran without any pre-conditions.
Candidate Obama also made some remarks about the plight of the Palestinian
people that made right-wing Israelis uneasy. His relentless talk of change
had the Jewish leaders in the United States worried that the change he was
talking about would also permeate to the policy of the United States toward
Israel. In short, candidate Obama promised that the relation between the
United States and the Islamic world would change for the better, if he was
elected the President, presumably because Bush had brought so much
destruction and bloodshed to the Muslims.
Then, on June 4, 2009, President Obama spoke directly to the Islamic world
to outline his new policy toward the Muslims. Calling it a new beginning,
and speaking to the Egyptian parliament in Cairo, the President made many
promises to the Muslims. This was hailed by many as a turning point in the
relations between the United States and the Islamic world.
But, was it, really? A little over a year has passed since the Cairo speech
and, therefore, it is time to examine whether the relations between the
United States and the Islamic world have improved, or are about the same as
during the George W. Bush administration, or they have actually deteriorated
further.
But, before getting into the specifics, I ask, why was the speech delivered
in Cairo? Was it because Egypt is the bastion of democracy and respect for
human rights and human dignity in the Middle East or in the Islamic world?
It is not. Egypt has been ruled by President Hosni Mubarak with an iron fist
since 1981 under emergency rule, imposed after Anwar El Sadat was
assassinated. Mubarak has been "re-elected" numerous times in sham
elections. Dissidents and human rights advocates have been harassed, jailed,
and tortured, and many political parties have been banned. Egypt has also
been a destination for some of the people captured by the CIA through its
extraordinary rendition program.
Could the President not deliver his speech to, for example, the Turkish
parliament? After all, Turkey is a large Muslim country with a functioning
democracy and run by a political party that has its roots in Islam. In June
2009 Turkey was still considered a reliable ally of the United States and
Israel even by the neoconservatives. It had not yet been the target of the
wrath of the neocons, at it has become now due to the Freedom Flotilla
episode.
Could the President not deliver his speech in Bangladesh, a Muslim country
that, despite being dirt poor, does have a functioning democracy and elected
the first female prime minister, Khaleda Zia, in the Islamic world? How
about Indonesia, a Muslim country where the President had spent years and
has a more or less democratic system, certainly much better than anything
that Egypt has? It is hard to imagine that an intelligent man like the
President did not understand the implications of his choice of Cairo for
delivering his speech. But, aside from the symbolic meaning of that choice,
we need to look at what the President and his administration have done to
Muslims and the Islamic world ever since he took over in January 2009. I
look at this at the levels of both Muslim individuals and Islamic countries.
Let us consider first the developments at the country-to-country level.
Iraq: The U.S. still has a sizeable force there. And, do not forget: The
troops that have left Iraq have been dispatched to Afghanistan; they have
not come home! All "non-combat" troops are supposed to leave by this summer,
but what will be left behind will still be very significant, at a level of
50,000 troops. The humongous U.S. embassy - a mini state within the state of
Iraq - was not scaled back by the Obama administration. Permanent military
bases have been secured, and the control of Iraq's oil by the U.S. is
assured. So, expect conflicts for many years to come, once Iraq's political
system is a bit more stable.
Afghanistan: Obama has delivered on his promise regarding Afghanistan, which
is, however, contradictory to the spirit of the Cairo speech. During his
campaign in 2008 he repeatedly promised that he would escalate the war in
Afghanistan, and he has. He has sent a large number of additional troops to
Afghanistan, with no end in sight. Many doubt that the strategy of General
Stanley McChrystal for defeating the Taliban will succeed. And, despite the
presence of 100000 NATO troops, including the U.S. forces, Taliban have
proven resilient.
The much touted Helmand offensive in February and March that was supposed to
have cleared a significant part of Afghanistan from Taliban's control was
not the success that it was made to be, and those parts of Afghanistan are
in fact still under Taliban control. And, the Kandahar offensive for this
spring was also postponed, or perhaps cancelled altogether, because there
was much pessimism about its effectiveness. Even Admiral Mike Mullen,
Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said "we are all angst" about the
course of the war. And, now, there are new allegations that portions of a
$2.1 billion Pentagon contract may be going to pay "protection" money to
Taliban and warlord groups in Afghanistan.
The NATO alliance is also tired. The Netherlands will withdraw its 1600
troops by August. Canada, which has 2800 troops in Afghanistan, will end its
combat role next year. David Cameron, Britain's new prime minister, has
expressed his support for the war, but has ruled out sending more troops.
Other NATO members want the alliance to draw a plan for exiting Afghanistan.
All the talks about training the Afghan soldiers and transferring the
control to the Afghan government are just that: talks. Soon, the President
must decide whether his self-imposed summer 2011 for beginning to withdraw
U.S. troops is, in fact, tenable. In fact, I believe that, now that a huge
deposit of minerals worth at least $1 trillion has been discovered in
Afghanistan, you can bet your house that the U.S. will stay in Afghanistan
for years to come. That will mean only more bloodshed and destruction. The
total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has surpassed $1 trillion,
while the economy here at home is languishing.
Aside from the military aspects, the U.S. did nothing when the corrupt and
incompetent Hamid Karzai stole the elections last year from his highly
competent rival Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. His government is weak and utterly
corrupt. Washington tolerates the close relations between Karzai's brother,
Ahmed Vali, with the drug lords. There is hardly a week in which we do not
hear about a significant number of innocent civilians getting killed,
wounded, and maimed by the U.S. and NATO forces. Wikileaks has promised to
release new videos on attacks in Afghanistan. Thus, the way the war in
Afghanistan is going, do not be surprised if the majority of Afghans are
nostalgic about the security that the Taliban had brought them. The war has
no military solution, but our enlightened President is pursuing one.
the rest of the article is at the url at the top....
0
Comments
Palzang
I have not been disappointed by the president because I didn't have high hopes for him to begin with, so my hopes and dreams have not been shattered.
I think the Cairo speech was a mistake personally. There is nothing to be gained from placating and talking nice to thug regimes like the ones in Egypt, Syria, Iran, or most of the countries in the Middle East. Once again, did anyone believe it would really have a positive effect? What soaked-to-the-bone jihadist who believes in wanton murder and that women should be treated as chattel slaves put down his sword because of that speech?
As for Afghanistan, I happen to believe the insistence on turning the country into a Jeffersonian democracy so suddenly, while not wrong, is misplaced. Korea did not become a functioning democracy until well after the Korean War. Likewise, I don't think we should have high expectations for the government in Afghanistan or Mr. Karzai and his unsavory administration. The singular goal there right now should be the annihilation of the Taliban and not much else.
Don't be so quick to prefer perfection over a flawed good. Yes, elements of Karzai's regime are corrupt and criminal, but worse than the monsters who hang/beat/throw acid on/torture women for showing their face, having a job, or going to the zoo? The Taliban/al-Qaeda/jihadist consortium represent the greatest organized evil on Earth today. Their enemies should [for a time] be our allies, even if they are themselves criminal. The US gave massive support to Stalin during WWII to defeat Germany not because Stalin was a liberal democrat, but because he represented the lesser of two evils at the time.
Like I said, I'm not surprised at the way Obama is handling foreign policy at all. With a few exceptions, I expected him to mirror his predecessor in many ways. And I believe his handling of the recent scandal with General McChrystal has been masterful. He was right to fire him (or accept his 'resignation') and even smarter for putting General Petraeus in charge.
The only thing I do find surprising here is that I am the one trying to defend President Obama.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything that's in that article above. But I disagree that there is some sort of hoax at work. It's only a hoax to people who weren't seeing the obvious reality to begin with.
In regard to the original post, Obama did what all politicians do; he promised a little more than he could deliver. He also kept his promises as vague as possible, as all politicians do, allowing people to read into them whatever they wanted to believe. And most people discover, when they are new to a job, that they have more restrictions on what they can do than they originally realized. As an Obama insider said about the Middle East, "We overestimated our ability to persuade".
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/night_of_the_living_wonks
I'm a zombie apocalypse Liberal. ;-)
Palzang
As to Afganistan and Iraq. How do you defeat a well funded foreign backed insurgency? Historically you don't. Just ask the old soviet Union how their 10 years in Afganistan went when those "Freedom fighter" were backed, funded and supplied by you know who;) Just ask the British ala 1776. Historically you can beat an insurgency.......all you need is a hell of a lot more troops and BRUTAL, UNREMITANT, suppression, I mean everyone. As bad as the Soviets were in Afganistan, they weren't even up to that standard. There such a tide of factors against us, the money from drugs, money from oil states, ideology, geography, religion and cultural factors, we will not win anything. How long has this been going on now? A fundamental rule of strategy is to make your enemy react to you and what you do, you then control the direction and tempo of the conflict. Your enemy is forever responding and trying to catch up. IMO they are effectively doing that to us. We will eventually leave without a good resolution for ourselves, leaving power vacuums that will allow the Taliban to reassert themselves in Afganistan and a power vacuum in Iraq, that I am sure Iran will have no qualms filling. Remember in taking out Saddam Hussein we removed the only effective deterent to Iran in that region. We have only strengthened Iran....a militant theocracy who is in love with nuclear weapons and wants the destruction of other nations with said weapons. Real nice. On that positive note have a good night:p
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
I wasn't aware that the Israelis ever were in Afghanistan, 5B, which is what I was talking about. And look how well it worked for the Israelis! Is there peace in the Middle East? Did I miss something?
Palzang
I agree that Israel faces serious problems as a result of pursuing this strategy. I was not recommending it, only pointing out that it actually is effective.
Palzang
I was responding to the claim that history shows that killing and bombing a population into submission is ineffective. It is effective if you're ruthless enough. The Russians were not ruthless enough. If they had gone around systematically terrorizing villages and major urban centers in Afghanistan like the Zionists did in the 1948 war, they would have achieved the same sort of depopulation.
In case it's not clear, I think it's a good thing that the US is not ruthless enough to approach the problem this way.
Didn't work to great apparently.
Palzang