President-elect Barack Obama says he will try to “reboot America’s image” among the world’s Muslims and will follow tradition by using his entire name ”” Barack Hussein Obama ”” in his swearing-in ceremony.
The U.S. image globally has taken a deep hit during President George W. Bush’s two terms in office, primarily because of opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, harsh interrogation of prisoners, the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and mistreatment of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America’s reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital.
Tragically (and hopefully not fatally) naive. His assumption is that the Islamic world does not “understand” us. That’s not the problem. He proposes to return us to our image as it was on 9/10/01 — and look where that got us. We actually have already “rebooted” our image in the Muslim world through both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while we are certainly not more loved, we are more feared and respected, and because of that fact we are all infinitely safer now than we were on 9/11.
When the history of 9/11 is written one day, I have no doubt that historians will conclude that our “image” in the Muslim world, and especially in the Arab Muslim world, as it existed on 9/11 contributed greatly to that event. Our image was weak and not willing to stand if attacked. Bin Laden’s goal was to drive us from the region, and he based his analysis on our previous flights from Beirut, Somalia and even our failure to bring Saddam down in 1991. If you read him he makes that clear. His analysis was widely shared in much of the Muslim world, and especially in the Arab world. After Afghanistan and Iraq that fantasy has now largely disappeared, and that is why we are safer, and that is why Iraq in particular, was ultimately necessary.
The 19 young men who attacked us on 9/11 were not Afghans, they were all Arabs. Our particular problem was in the Arab world, especially in Saudi Arabia. If the President-elect thinks the problem is simply that we are misunderstood in the Arab world, he is in for a very rude awakening indeed.
Perhaps Riyad would be a perfect capital for him to try out his theory. Right after he tells them that we are not going to change our historic relationship with Israel and that although his middle name is Hussein he is a practicing Christian he will have a golden opportunity to remake our image! Maybe he can take along his fluent Hebrew-speaking chief of staff for good measure! This is a CLASSIC and tragic example of American naivety!
How silly does John McCain feel now after chastising anyone who ever used Barack’s middle name during the campaign?
Chris,
It’s even more dangerous than mere naivete. It’s hubris mixed with naivete. IIRC, isn’t our president-elect viewed as an apostate by strict Muslims because he was raised as a Muslim (while a child in Indonesia) and then left the faith to become a Christian?
I have no objection to Obama’s using his full given name at his inauguration. Perfectly proper.
I agree with Chris Taylor, #1, on our image in the Arab world before and after 9/11. We are no longer considered pushovers. If Obama and other leftists want to really help our image, they will use their personal influence to persuade Hollywood to stop making all these sleazy movies and TV shows which are syndicated worldwide. The rest of you can help by not watching this sludge. Arabs, heavily influenced by what they see on the screen, think that Americans are violent and without morals. Western women on the streets of the Middle East are assumed to be loose and subjected to unpleasant attention or worse, even when conservatively dressed. We, my husband and I, actually get BETTER treatment when locals realize that we have been married many years and practice our Christianity.
Oh, and CNN could stop running those in-depth stories on how violent and ill-behaved we are at home. I had an illuminating conversation with my pharmacist, who is considering a six-month course of post-graduate study in the Midwest U.S. He was afraid that he would be attacked because he’s Muslim and that people are constantly breaking into houses with guns.
While I have no problem with Mr. Obama using his middle name when he takes the oath of office come January, I have a problem with his justification. There is no “tradition” of using full names while taking the oath. My beef is that he can’t take responsibility for his decision. There was absolutely no need to justify it. He just has a phobia to being held accountable for ANYTHING. This will be a VERY long 4 years.
Hell give his speech. The media will heap praise upon him for being the un-Bush. The US will begin the Bush administration’s planned troop draw down in Iraq–Obama will be praised for it. The view of the average Muslim towards the US will change slightly, from the sense of a poweful, dangerous, sometimes erratic player to a weaker, more vulnerable, more consistently passive player in world affairs. This will please many. Their estimation of the US will change–not necessarily for the better.
Muslims know that they can do their part in the [i]jihad[/i] simply by populating the West with themselves. As a friend quipped, “We are fighting them over there so we can invite them over here.”
Chris, I disagree. The Islamic world may have prejudiced, two dimensional views about the USA. It’s no different than the European nations in this regard.
Their view of the USA is that
1) We don’t really believe in democracy, given our support of Islamic dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and our refusal to negotiate with democratically elected Muslims.
2) our culture is decadent, given that Hollywood is our most popular export. We say we are exporting liberty, they feel we’re destroying Islamic families.
3) we’re racist and anti-Muslim.
The USA is a complex, diverse country, generally mapped by optimism and commerce. Yes, there are racists and anti-Islamic people here. But it is also growing. Muslims live next door. They even participate in community events. They own Indian restaurants. They even call me “father” when I greet them.
The USA is not anti-democratic; nor decadent; nor racist. There are people who, for reasons of commerce and politics support dictatorships; there are plenty of hedonists; and yes there are racists in the US. But that does not make a country.
This entire debate is much more complex given that the role of the USA has been to divert the real conflicts in the Islamic world. There are dozens of Islamic countries; there’s differences in practice and in race; there’s differences in piety. And there is a growing conflict between secular Muslims and religious Muslims. We’ve been really good at uniting all of them by providing reasons to be their enemy.
What Obama lacks is an instinctive hatred of Islam. He may be skeptical, but he is not easily offended. And this will be good. For us, and for the Islamic world, which is struggling to manage the challenges of modernity, just as we did about 500 years ago.
“Chris, I disagree. The Islamic world may have prejudiced, two dimensional views about the USA. It’s no different than the European nations in this regard.” Sorry John, Europeans have not flown any jet liners into buildings here lately. There also weren’t multiple images from all over Europe of spontaneous celebration in the streets in the hours after 9/11. I’ve lived in the Arab world for over a decade, (returning there in 3 weeks with 10 students) speak and read the language, teach Islamic history, have many Muslim friends and colleagues and while there’s certainly room for improvement in our relations, and you’re absolutely right that the Islamic world is not monolithic, it’s hardly as you say: “no different than the European nations in this regard.”
One thing Bush did post-Sept.11 that I hope Obama will continue is promoting the Peace Corps and other programs that send Americans to Islamic countries. We have stereotypes of Muslims, they have stereotypes of us. I couldn’t begin to count how many people I’ve met in my nearly 20 years overseas who say things like “we hate your government but because we’ve met you and other Americans, and because you’ve come here to help us, we LOVE American people.”
John F. Kennedy is hugely revered in the country I work in, there’s even one of the main streets in the capital city named after him, because he founded the Peace Corps, and because of a US Aid program Kennedy supported that helped many in my country at a very very difficult time.
But while I wholly support such “good will” programs, I’m not deceived that such alone will reduce the risk of terror attacks. We were not attacked because those terrorists were confused about othe U.S., but because those terrorists believe they need to win a war against the West ad Christianity.
John, #8, as usual, you have some pretty good things to say, and then you spice it up with unnecessarily emotion-ridden statements: “We’ve been really good at uniting all of them by providing reasons to be their enemy.” So how have we done that – by invading Afghanistan? Iraq? Abu Grahb? Guantanamo? If so, how do those things unite all Muslims? If Muslims are so different in so many ways, how do our actions against a handful of the most extreme terrorists and against the most extreme and repressive political regimes ever to exist in the world cause Muslims to unite against us. Are they not capable of seeing the reasons for our actions and separate them out from our feelings against all Islam?
Second, “What Obama lacks is an instinctive hatred of Islam.” Now that statement infers that someone else has such an instinctive hatred … who? Surely you would not suggest our present President, who has made it clear so many times that our incursions are in no way against Islam and who has asked for moderate Muslim help against terrorism? Who? The general American population – in the South and in Fly-over country – though, of course, not among the Northeast elite intelligensia? Who? Perhaps it is this assumption from certain persons, such as yourself, that there is such an “instinctive hatred” in some people that has contributed to the alleged “opinion” of the US, that you speculated was held by Muslims worldwide, that Mr. Obama, in his naivete can do something about – n’est ce pas?
[i]Surely you would not suggest our present President, who has made it clear so many times that our incursions are in no way against Islam and who has asked for moderate Muslim help against terrorism?[/i]
Certainly not, given his support for restive Islamic militants in Kosovo and Chechnya.
[i]though, of course, not among the Northeast elite intelligensia?[/i]
Recall that the Northeast has so far borne the brunt of Muslim terror attacks in the US.
Muslims are over here because we are over there, either ourselves or through local proxies, and because we support the Jewish state over the Palestinians. So long as we project our policy choices into the Middle East while simultaneously allowing Muslim immigration, Islamic terrorism is going to be a cost of doing business in the US. Conservatives dream of nipping matters in the bud by “fighting them over there,” inspiring future generations of jihadists, and also ignoring the historical fact that these sorts of ventures are followed by an influx of natives into the mother country. Liberals believe that arrival on our multicultural shores will transform Muslims into secular social democrats.
The ‘Jewish State’ issue is a red herring. Israel is less than .01% of all the land in the Middle East. It’s like comparing Rhode Island to the United States. No, like comparing the Island of Manhattan!
It should also be remembered that in all the peace talks, the US agents have always included provisions in the treaties and agreements for Palestinian rights and property, ownership, etc. And that in 98% of the broken treaties, it is NOT the Israelis who have broken the accord or moved against the other party, or stated that they will not be satisfied until the others are ‘driven into the sea’. In fact, Israel has gone against their own interest many times over, even giving back 90% of the land captured during the 68 War, including the entire Sinai Peninsula.
Plus, the US still supports — militarily and financially — the Arab states in the Middle East IN ADDITION to Israel.
However, Islamic extremists will continue to herald our support of Israel as a ‘just cause’ for attacking us. And that is unfortunate.
If Obama wants to ‘reboot’ our image with the Muslim world, he might start by insisting that they be honest about this issue.
Peace
Jim Elliott
Florida
Hear, hear, Jim. Way back in the 70’s I was involved in Model U.N. in high school. I also took a trip to the UN, and heard a “debate” on the Israeli/Palestinian situation as it was then. The Arab wailed and moaned about how no one supported the poor refugees. I couldn’t help it, I lit into him (well, as well as I could getting over the fact that I realized I was a high school student telling this diplomat that he was full of it). He was stunned, as was the rest of my audience. The Arabs created the “refugee” situation by telling them that they would drive out the Jews, and they could take over the country, back in 1948. And that they evicted all Jews from Arab countries; the Jews didn’t evict these refugees. That was just one of my points, I admit most of what I said is a blur, but I TOTALLY enjoyed the look on this guy’s face! They have NEVER been honest about this. You cannot deal with folks who refuse to acknowledge truth. And to be truthful, this goes way back to Genesis and Exodus. Read your history. But, THAT is another story.
[i] President-elect Barack Obama says he will try to “reboot America’s image” among the world’s Muslims [/i]
No harm in trying. Obama doesn’t propose unilateral disarmament; he plans to give a [i] speech [/i]. Odd to get one’s bowels in an uproar about that.
Borrowing a metaphor from Mao Tse Tung, we might liken Islamist terrorists to fish swimming largely in a sea of Muslims. The less friendly the sea, the more difficult life becomes for the fish. Obama won’t change the terrorists view of the United States. But [i] if [/i] he can get other Muslims to take a more positive view, he may make it easier for their governments to cooperate with the USA against terrorism.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] There is no “tradition†of using full names while taking the oath [/i] —Crabby [#5]
Yes, there is.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] My beef is that he can’t take responsibility for his decision” [/i] —Crabby [#5]
A silly accusation based on the commenter’s erroneous assumption about past practice in presidential oath-taking.
Besides, if Obama omitted his middle name, wingnuts would say he was trying to hide it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Kudos to Crabby [#14] for lighting into the Arab diplomat who complained about how [i] no one [/i] helped the refugees. Plus extra-credit kudos for doing so as a high-school student.
Chris, there are a variety of people who are terrorists. There are even Americans trying to plant terror: a couple months ago a few White Supremacists talked about killing Black students before assassinating Obama. The IRA was pretty good at it too. Muslims don’t have a monopoly on terror.
My point was that when it comes to two dimensional views, there are plenty of people in the Muslim and European world who have a two dimensional view. I did not say that Muslims or Europeans were the same. And I didn’t even talk about Muslim Europeans. I don’t doubt your expertise, however. But I do think the idea that we are “weak” isn’t quite accurate. It is enough that we are understood as hypocrites, decadent, self-righteous and eager to destroy Islam. And given the track record of some demagogues in the US, I can understand why they would have that view. But they are wrong: this does not accurately reflect the US. Just as the view that Islam only understands strength is itself a racist and stereotypical view. If anything they could easily say “tu quoque” to us as well.
There is a greater point, however. Al Quaeda is as much a marketing event as an organization. The US desperately needs a counter marketing tool. Barack is it. He offers to young Muslims and a conception of America that is inspiring and different than the view I have ascribed.
That’s true. We can’t forget ‘American’ Terrorists like Timothy McVie, the Unabomber, and Bill Ayers.
John, it is very true that terrorism is not exclusive to the Islamic world. There are certainly American terrorists and every major world religion I know of faces the challenge of extremists who are willing to engage in terrorism. What’s different in the case of contemporary Islam, however, is the extent to which the terrorists have been successful at tapping into the mainstream tradition. There are, unfortunately, millions of Muslims — mainstream Muslims — who applaud and support (financially and in other ways) the actions of the terrorists. This is a unique situation. I don’t think millions of Americans support the actions of American terrorists or that the level of support for extremists among mainstream populations of other great world religions is anywhere near as high as it is in the contemporary Muslim world.
You completely missed my point about being “weak.” I did not say that we are weak, I said that up to 9/11 we were widely perceived as weak and more committed to enjoying our “decadent lives” than to defending them. The perception of weakness proved to be fatal.
In terms of the President-elect as a “marketing tool” in the Muslim world, you are right that for the time being he is wildly popular especially among younger Muslims. However, I would caution you that the confusion about his religion was not limited to this country. Furthermore, Islam takes a very dim view of apostasy, and, under Islamic law he is an apostate. The child of a Muslim father is, under Islamic law, a Muslim — period. That is why a Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim monotheistic woman, but a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim monotheistic man. The idea that he would give up his Muslim heritage for Christianity will not go over well in most of the Muslim world. In fact, in most Muslim countries it would not even be legal. What may seem like a great marketing tool now may well prove to be a disaster when, as I anticipate, the next president continues to pursue historic policies that this country has long pursued, which are not appreciated in the Islamic world. As the frustration grows the President-elect’s Muslim heritage may not serve us as well as you seem to think.
I am not arguing the merits of US support for Israel. I am saying that it is a hot-button issue for millions of Muslim Arabs and there are consequences for that policy choice, so long as you are going to maintain a non-discriminatory immigration policy. I suppose you could say we have “solved” this dilemma by spending billions of dollars to try and reduce the number of terrorists and potential terrorists by killing more Arab men in their 20’s and 30’s and vastly increasing the number of government employees and giving them enhanced powers at home. That is the cost of a multicultural state, but it is not a long-term solution.
What I have read is that
Musllims thought that the embargo had disasterous effects in Iraw, killing thousands of children.
They were offended that Americans had a presence in Saudi Arabia.
They think that the US is unfair towards Palestinians.
They may be wrong on all three counts, of course, but their grievances were pretty clear. We say we support Democracy, but when Hamas gets elected, we backtrack. This sends mixed messages to the Islamic world.
You may be right. I do think that Muslims think that we are at war with them. So in the context of war, countries, or religions, take sides. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq seems like war to them. It may not be, but that may be how it feels. Is it war?
the argument bout Obama being understood as an apostate is interesting, but more likely it will exacerbate differences in the Muslim world along the lines of technology and liberalism. Al-Quaeda has little interest in Muslims having a positive view of America, so very likely they will try to play that card. But it will be a struggle for them, especially if Obama demonstrates that he is listening to some of the legitimate critiques of American Foreign Policy, and refrains from using charged religious language.
The people who suffer from terrorism aren’t just Americans or Christians. Muslims also suffer. They are the ones who have borne most of the carnage since 9/11. Count the numbers of deaths.