Obama Addresses the Muslim World (Cole in Salon)
My column at Salon.com is out, on the Arab world's perception of President Barack Obama on the eve of his major address in Cairo.
Excerpt:
' The Brookings poll shows that just three issues are cited by most Arab respondents as determinative of their view of the United States. In order, they are Iraq, the plight of the Palestinians, and attitudes toward the Arab and Muslim worlds. Interestingly, the war in Afghanistan, democracy promotion, and the issues around Iran have very little resonance among Arab publics. Iraq was cited as the key issue by 42 percent in six countries polled, so it is fair to conclude that Obama's stock in the Arab world, at least, is likely to rise or fall on how well he handles his planned military disengagement from that country.'
Read the whole thing.
See also VOA on the view of Obama's Middle East trip from Dearborn, Michigan, with its large Arab-American population.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/04/2009 12:01:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Obama is making a big mistake giving a speech in Cairo. Cairo is the capital of Egypt whose president is illegitimate. By giving a speech there Obama gives ammunition to the radical anti government forces like Al-Qaeda that America is against the people of the region. Obama should speak out against the unelected leaders who are so called 'moderates' but do not represent their people. They are only 'moderates' and 'allies' because without the US they would all fall and fall they should! From Cairo to Riyad all those governments are undemocratic and not what the US should be dealing with. The real failure here is the failure to recognize that these speeches give legitimacy to corrupt unelected governments and therefore the people just end up blaming the US for all the problems. The US should be strong and speak out against all who oppress their people and be true to the American ideals. How is it that communism was evil but Saudi Arabia that created the 9-11 tragedy is not evil? Last I checked the Communists never flew planes into civilian buildings. The travesty is how the US President can keep a straight face and justify the friendly relations with the worst regimes like Saudi Arabia(absolute monarch and home to Wahabi Islam the ideology that brought us Al Qaeda), Egypt(who's president has farce elections like Saddam had), Jordan(which is another unrepresentative monarch), Mahmoud Abbas(a person whose party actually lost an open and fair election). THe problem is that America is lying to itself and until that changes nothing will be fixed. Obama should call for a mass uprising by the people against all their governments.
Praising Obama is fair, but we must also take into account the strategic shift in the US and EU.
Israel was seen as a hired gun to a large extent. It killed Arabs and Muslims and kept them under control on behalf of the West --the corruption of Washington by AIPAC et al is true, but overblown.
The new ME realites are:
1) An unreliable Israeli military unable even to defeat Hizbullah in 2006.
2)A deep hole for the US/UK in Iraq caused to a large degree by Israel's manipulation of the idiot in the WH, GW Bush. So the US became the hired gun, but paying Israel instead of being paid!
3) The mouthwatering $2TR in Arab reserves, and desperate needs for cash in the US. Washington can easily go bankrupt if its auctions find no buyers.
4) The clear signals by the Gulf states that they "want to see other people", particularly China and Russia.
The expectations from President Obama’s June 4th speech are indeed high. It is hoped that President Obama will help in altering mutual perceptions by re-designing American policies towards the Muslim world. In the vast multitude of expectations President Obama faces two primary challenges. First, he has to skillfully appeal to the various segments of the non-monolith Muslim world. Second, he has to be realistic without being disappointing.
http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/?p=575
.
"... how well he handles his planned military disengagement from [Iraq.]"
Professor,
President Obama has no intention of disengaging the US military from Iraq.
The proof of that is the fact that he has not replaced the two generals in charge of the military in Iraq who have said that the US cannot disengage for at least 10 years.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2nd Squad, 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 2/8 Infantry, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, will go out on combat patrol from Combat Outpost Falcon, equipped with their MTOE individual and crew-served weapons, mounted in MRAP's and HMMWV's, and accompanied by 16 Iraqi soldiers from the 6th Infantry Brigade.
The next day, that same squad will go out on a patrol with the same equipment, the same Rules of Engagement, the same mission, and the same Iraqi soldiers. The only difference: the FRAGO will say in Paragraph 2 that the Iraqis are leading the patrol, and the Americans are only tagging along to help train the Iraqis.
What are the chances that American SSG Murphy is going to defer decisions to Lieutenant Ahmed, and risk getting himself and his entire squad killed ?
COP Falcon will be renamed Wednesday morning as "Community Security Station al-Quds" or some such thing. The Official line will be that the Iraqis are now in charge, and that Bravo Company has been converted from a combat unit to a training unit.
That is how we are going to meet the 30 June deadline for pulling combat units out of cities.
........
Until President Obama replaces those insubordinate Generals with Generals who are willing to support and defend the Constitution, there isn't a darn thing he can do about it. Unless he replaces them, he is signaling that he is OK with the policies that they have decided themselves that contradict the policies he has announced.
How would Harry Truman have handled this situation ?
a student of military history
.
.pdf => that Brookings Poll, fwiw: regarding "attitudes" of peoples living in the Middle East towards various things (asked by, and of interest mainly to peoples living in The West {grin} imho, The "attitude" of the questions we pose to THEM are more interesting, revealing than the "attitude" responses they supposedly express to US :)
Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu. I would be disappointed if he didn't : it is essential for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
... but one thing he won't do is "antagonising Muslims" (sorry Osama).
Post a Comment
<< Home