Blogs and Stories
Memo to Obama: Cairo Was a Mistake—UPDATE
Jim Watson, AFP / Getty Images)
Obama blew a real shot at reconciliation with the Muslim world by picking Cairo for his historic speech, writes The Daily Beast's Reza Aslan.
UPDATE: In his speech in Cairo on Thursday, Obama used terms that no American president would dream of using and that caught my attention. Speaking movingly of the daily humiliations of the Palestinians, Obama referred to the situation in the Palestinian territories as an “occupation,” a word sure to ripple through both the Muslim world and the United States, and he urged both sides in the conflict to live up to their obligations under the so-called road map to peace. Unfortunately, Obama made no mention of the consequences for Israel’s continued defiance of international law. Nor did he have much to offer beyond the barest of platitudes for the one issue that poll after poll in the Muslim world indicates is the biggest concern of Muslims: the lack of political rights. Obama may have felt hamstrung by the presence of his host, Hosni Mubarak, one of the worst despots in the region, a man who runs a police state in which bloggers, journalists, and democracy activists—not to mention freely elected members of parliament—are routinely rounded up and jailed on trumped-up charges. Nevertheless, the few words he did have on the topic of democracy received the loudest and most sustained applause, an indication that this is a topic that Obama cannot afford to ignore.
ORIGINAL POST: President Obama made his much-anticipated address to the Muslim world with the aim of forging a new relationship with a part of the world that was all too often demonized by the Bush administration’s destructive and counterproductive “war on terrorism” rhetoric. But in choosing Cairo as the setting for his historic speech, Obama made a grave mistake, one that could conceivably make the entire event a fruitless exercise. In fact, it just may confirm the prediction of Obama’s fiercest critics in the region, who are already decrying this speech as nothing more than a photo op.
Obama has in effect rewarded Egypt’s president for life, Hosni Mubarak, for his bloody, blatantly anti-democratic, and dictatorial rule.
No doubt Obama chose Egypt to highlight its growing role as a mediator between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But the simple fact is that Egypt is hardly “the Muslim world.” Indeed, the Muslim world now exists primarily on the margins of the Middle East. Arabs especially make up an increasingly tiny fraction of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims (about 10 percent, according to some estimates). There are now more Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa than there are Arabs of any religion. Of the top 10 most populous Muslim nations in the world, only one (Egypt) is Arab, and it comes near the end of the list. Egypt may be a strategic ally of the U.S., not to mention the second-largest recipient of American aid, but its importance is strictly regional, and this was not billed as an address to the Middle East but to the Muslim world.
Obama should have chosen Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, a moderate, pluralistic, wildly successful democratic country whose citizens just last month overwhelming voted for secular and moderate Muslim parties over the country’s more radical Islamist groups. Instead, by choosing Cairo as the backdrop to his speech, Obama has in effect rewarded Egypt’s president for life, Hosni Mubarak, for his bloody, blatantly anti-democratic, and dictatorial rule.
After a brief opening up of Egyptian society under pressure from the Bush administration, when members of the Muslim Brotherhood were allowed to contest parliamentary elections and Mubarak for the first time actually let someone run against him in the sham presidential elections he insists on having every six years, Egypt has reverted to its former police state status—with a vengeance.
Bloggers, journalists, and democracy activists have been rounded up and jailed on trumped-up charges, as have freely elected members of parliament who have dared to question Mubarak’s permanent application of Egypt’s emergency laws, in place now for more than two decades. In fact, Obama could not have chosen a more unpopular Muslim leader than Mubarak. Few have forgotten Mubarak’s complicity in the devastating war between Israel and Gaza. By shutting down the Rafah crossing—on the border between Gaza and Egypt—and watching callously as Palestinians starved on his doorstep, Mubarak arguably received as much, if not greater, blame on the Arab street for the Gaza tragedy than even Israel.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Stiffing the Revolutionaries
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Naive Obama Gets Iran Results
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Obama's Last Iran Option
Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.
Obama's apology tour is going to Egypt so Obama can blame the US for all the ills of the Muslim world and then offer his humble apologies. It makes a lot more sense for him to go to a dictatorship like Egypt rather then a Muslim democracy like Indonesia, because there are many more problems in Egypt that Obama can blame on the US.
You know, sticking your dick in other nations' foreign affairs time after time *does* actually piss people off. Not all the Muslim world's problems are ours, but we have our fair share, and part of fixing our diplomatic stance is going to involve copping to what our actions have led to.
You would think Obama might consult with
someone like the author of this column,
someone who actually understands the region's
social and political dynamics.
But no, Obama seems to be so self assured
in his own beliefs, or arrogance,
how could he possibly do or say
anything misguided?
It's maddening how much of the media
doesn't question some of his comments,
such as Obama saying The U.S. is one
of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
Where on earth did he pull that one?
It's really curious how some in the media believe just
because Obama has a familiar middle name
to the Arab world, that somehow makes him
more acceptable to the radical element.
Aren't radicals blowing up their own people,
their own countrymen, and if that's the case,
what makes the media
believe radicals will soften their stance on
a foreigner, the U.S. President, just because
"Hussein" is part of his name?
Trying to respond to sophia5 below me. O totally got it wrong calling America one of the largest Muslim countries. But I think your wrong in assuming that the discussion over his middle name is about radical elements.
No one is saying that Obama is going to talk hardliner into putting down their guns--or even the desperately poor and un-educated who make up most of the foot soldiers for terrorist groups. The question is, if he has the name, *and* if he's making a good faith effort to appeal to the Muslim world, then will fewer people who dislike the U.S. consider terrorism an empowering path.
Honestly, I think the whole talk of his name is just lazy journalism, anyways. Yes, it's symbolic, but most of the Muslim world just sees him as another American president. What he says and whether his actions follow through will matter more to them, and if not win international support, at least dampen the intense antipathy that's been stirred up further in the past eight years.
I've read many criticisms on the President's speech on this page. Whether its the content of the speech or venue, one cannot argue that this President has done more to reach out to the greater muslim world than any other U.S. President in recent history. Some people get off on criticizing and looking for areas of lack, rightfully so. This is needed. As for those of us who are cynical, yet practical, we believe that the speech was a necessary step in the right direction. Perhaps the reason Egypt was chosen was its proximity to Israel. Perhaps the fact the Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid makes the country a safer location for the speech. I agree with Zugzwang in principle. If this speech is expected to launch a new improved relationship with the broader muslim world and the middle east, we have to accept our responsibility in the current state of affairs.
When did Obama "Apologize"?.
After 8 years of some of the worst foriegn polcy mistakes in recent history Obama has alot of cleaning up to do.
Bush and Cheney have done more to piss off the rest of the world than any other president.
I agree, Egypt is not the best place to start, but save the Rush Limbaugh talking points.
At what point are we allowed to call Obama's mistakes just that? Why is it that when Obama fouls things up, we say it's because he has such a mess to clean up from the Bush era. However, when Bush walked into office and was faced with 9-11, no one said anything about Clinton. To be so obtuse is a real sign of ignorance.
Speaking of ignorance...that's exactly what Obama called the American people when visiting france. He called us arogant and ignorant, and then he apologized. So that's just one example of the many "apologies" he is making on his tour.
Maybe the 'second-coming' can make a mistake or two that have his name written all over them, instead of a scapegoat's.
Gracefulone's reference to a "mess" that Clinton left Bush puzzles me. The only "mess" I recall is the trillion or so surplus Clinton left in the bank--which George gave away as quickly as possible. The giveaway was largely to his rich friends, although we peons got a little $300 bone tossed our way in W's attempt to buy general popularity on the cheap. Then, with the piggy bank empty, Bush leaped into an expensive war--financing that by charging the cost to the federal debt. Later, our faltering financial system all but destroyed the world economy. That's the true mess that was left by Bush for Obama.
Come on canfield - Obama is going to give me about $800, then is going to tax me on it (and my insurance benefits too).
@gracefultone:
You'll be reassured to know that over here in France, that alleged line of calling Americans arrogant (with TWO "r"s, BTW) and ignorant went unreported.
In fact, your comment is the first time I heard it.....
Can we really refer to Indonesia as a 'moderate Muslim democracy'. Didn't they just finish wiping out their opposition, the Tamils, with what many would call genocide?
That's Sri Lanka, not Indonesia. And it's a Buddhist country, not Muslim.
most of you are nuts!!!!..obama is the best leader this country has ever had..if you could all come out of your fear long enough that someone is out to get you maybe you could see the reality and the blessings...carol
you need to get your facts right!!
To Felixsama, war between government army with LTTE (Tamils) you have mentioned occured in Sri Lanka, not Indonesia. Acc: kspear.
knowledge fail....
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
optimus, you are quick to assume that we are pissing people off. our country has sacrificed more for freedom than any other nation in the world. and it's not because we're just going around "sticking our nose" places. it's because we have gone where we were needed...and where we were requested.
now, on one hand, i'm a believer in the theory of our forefathers, which was to keep our nose to our paper, and worry about ourselves...because once you help out one nation, ten more come calling, and you end up offending those you didn't help. it's a wicked web. but we're far past that stage now...and i think it's sad that our people lack the patriotism to stand behind our country for helping others, and working towards the common good.
i'm sure this post will be attacked, but on some level, you all know that the american people like to attack their own country, just for the sake of being democrats.
gracefulone--so when we helped Saddam Hussein to power, that was us promoting democracy in Iraq? And when we funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan, it was in the name of freedom? How about supporting the Shar in Iran?
What America is guilty of is playing Risk with the world, but claiming to do it under the auspices of promoting democracy. I agree that we *have* promoted democracy more than any nation in the world. But often we've simply propped up other governments in order to preserve our interests.
Our nation is great, but it isn't perfect. Criticizing our nation's foreign policy isn't attacking the country or the flag--it's attacking misguided foreign policy.
I did not hear this same complaining when Clinton was going into Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and every other place he could to nation build. Why the double standard? Is it becuase Bush decided to nation build in a place that required some balls?
To MadMatt35F-
There was actual a very healthy chorus of criticism of Bill Clinton from within the Democratic Caucus in regards to Bosnia and Somalia - on the very point you raised: nation-building. That was a highly contentious policy at the time. Don't knock down strawmen!
Plantagenet - Can you please provide the basis for your "apology tour" comment?Any quote from any Obama speech that appears to "blame the U.S. for all the ills of the Muslim world" or offers a apology for the same, would do. I trust that you have these quotes handy and that you're not just parroting an RNC talking point. Or, perhaps, are you in fact, just that - a parrot who repeats what others say without having the integrity to confirm such statements?
the integrity to research the truth in all the
se situations...one thing i believe to be true is obamas transparency, and honesty..and if he makes a mistake or does something wrong he is the first to admit it...god our politicians have been dishonest for so long we cant figure out how to deal with the honesty obama is dishing out...the politicians in this country have lied to us so many times, especially the last admiistration..they are all backing away from each other without wanting to be associated with each other, because of all the lying and the up and coming elections in 20 10
You're right. Obama should stop apologizing. George W. Bush is the one who made so many darn mistakes. W should be the one giving the apology tour through Europe and the Middle East.
His purpose might be to tell the leaders he is accepting of their ruling style, be it despot or monarchy and he is not there to force American values on any nation. That would be a consistent message. The argument presented is 78% of Muslim people expecting Obama to push for democracy against their leaders. I wonder how much projection is in this story. I don't think this is consistent with his message or goals.
Speaking to the Muslim leaders, be they despots or monarchy, is consistent with O's message of US not forcing their values, the argument for 78% of Muslim people expecting O to support their push against those leaders for democracy is a whole other thing and that is not consistent with the O message at all. He's made a choice if the author is correct. I wonder if there is more projection here than firm fact?
I agree that Obama should not be in Cairo and I think that the US should remove itself from having any presence at all in the Middle East. While there might be a few decent individuals in the Middle East, there is not a single country or form of government that is worth our effort. We have wasted countless amounts of money and thousands of lives on the various countries of Middle East and it is time to stop the madness, they are not worth our good bullets. If the United States and our Allies were to completely remove themselves from the Middle East and not allow a single $ or a single American to enter the Middle East until they learn how to act, I think that they might realize that they need to change their ways if they want to sell any of that oil they have under them.
The definition of insanity is continuing to beat your head against a brick wall and expecting a different result.
If the US removes itself from the middle east then how is Israel going to survive and where are you going to get the rest of your oil from? That's the reality of the situation.
Israel has the army, the fighter jets and the bombs we gave them to take care of itself. They will have to stop pussyfooting around and actually blow a whole city up, instead of trying to wage war without killing any civilians.
They will deliver the oil to wherever we tell them and act the way we tell them or they will starve, just like the countries in the Middle East that don't have any oil. Those that are poor and have never known anything different won't care but the rich countries of the Middle East will hate being poor and will do whatever it takes to get rich again.
Our country with a lot of sacrifice could wean itself off Middle East oil if we really wanted to. It would mean a change in a lot of our lifestyles but not all for the bad, more good will come of people biking, walking, new mass transit options, living closer to work, etc.
dgator.
I suggest you get off your ass and join the Army and go fight and "Blow Up" a city or two.
dgator
The only reason why the other nations in the Middle East haven't destroyed Israel is that they know they would have to deal with us afterwards... We're the momma bear.
dgator-
Continental Europe would love if you were the President of the United States. You would lower their petrol prices so quickly they might ask you to become the permanent POTUS. Once we remove our demand by refusing to give the Middle East money, Europe would start buying an incredible amount of oil extremely cheaply. That's the problem with your intellectually lazy strategy: your plan only works in a historical vacuum - it would only work if the "Middle East" acted as one entity and the only other entity in the world was the US. Unfortunately, Europe's demand for energy has always been a large wrinkle in our dealings with Middle Eastern countries. That's why it's critical that Obama change the tone completely from that of George W. Bush. Because he alienated so many European allies, it made our Middle East policy much more difficult because much of the time we had to execute it in isolation. See: Iran nuclear aspirations and France.
I disagree that we should have no presence at all in the Middle East. No presence at all? Not even embassies? We've definitely gone too far in trying to shape the politics of the region in our favor, but I'm not sure that means withdraw our voice there entirely. More change will probably come out of approaching Middle Eastern leaders as a hesitant ally. Interaction and exchange--plus well-timed political pressure--will do more than invading countries and forcing regime change.
I do agree with Reza that O should have gone to Indonesia, and he should have done this in, like, his first two months. Seems a little late now.
Obama spent a portion of his childhood in Indonesia. His election was widely celebrated there, and as far as I know the Indonesian people don't dispise Americans as the Egyptian people do. Yes, Indonesia would be the easy welcoming photo op, but I am not sure that it would change any perceptions in the region.
Maybe the easy place would have been the safe bet, but when do you start with the hard stuff. We are hated in the Middle East partly for the same reason that there is hatred in the U S for those in the Middle East. Politically enhanced ignorance. But we are hated partly for just cause. 100,000 unarmed civilians were slaughtered in Iraq for no reason other than it benefitted Exxon-Mobile and Haliburton. If I were the parent or the child of one of the civilians killed in this war of choice, I would hate the nameless, faceless Americans who were tricked us into this atrocity until the day I died. We aren't always the guys with the white hats.
Excellent to present this view, xlntcat. Watching Pres. Obama arrive this am gave me hope that this is what he is thinking.
No presence at all and no embassies. You are kidding yourself if you think that any of them will ever truly be our allies. They are only our allies when it is in their best interest, not because they share our same values or goals.
I disagree with the Indonesia part. He needed to go somewhere in the Middle East and somewhere Arab. Speaking about Israel and Palestine in the context of Indonesia would have removed any of the effect of the speech.
dgator-
"They are only our allies when it is in their best interest, not because they share our same values or goals." This quote from you is point in case why you should leave politics to those who know. Do you really think shared values is why any European country is our ally? Hell no, it's because of shared interests. And you can believe that any European country would cross us if their interests became decoupled from ours. And we would, too. And that's the way it should be!
I guess you're one of those people who thinks that our actions in the last 50 years in the MIddle East have had a damn thing to do with "spreading democracy?"
The Shah of Iran?
The SAudis?
Saddam Hussein?
lol dude, you have no idea how much we (the USA) depend on their oil, you know the stuff that we spend alot of $$ on. they don't come to us saying "buy our oil, we go to THEM trying to get more of it...
i can understand your frustration with the middle east, but to suggest that we totally ignore it as if it wasn't there.....well i guess that's just because you are very misinformed (or just plain ignorant)
I hope to see Obama in Indonesia soon, at a gamelan performance, where the dalaan, or puppet master, uses two-dimensional puppets behind a translucent screen illuminated by lanterns to tell the Ramayana. We are the change we've been waiting for.
Except Indonesia tried to ethnically cleanse it's ethnic Chinese citizens, who then fled, plunging the countries economy into the gutter.
They are not really and "Ally" so much as a "Strategically Valuable Location". So Reza is wrong. No one in an industrialized country (The U.S. or the U.K.) thinks of Africa when you mention Muslim terrorists, or religious strife involving different sects of Islam.
Obama is again doing the right thing, but that's what these articles are all about, saying he's right or wrong based on spin.
"Obama is again doing the right thing, but that's what these articles are all about, saying he's right or wrong based on spin."
Good point. If everyone realized that there'd be a lot of columnists out of a job.
I totally agree with Reza. Egypt is not and cannot be a place to speak to the "Muslim World". Nor Obama should praise the dictator by raising him to the man he spoke all Muslims through. This is sick.
I don't think he should even speak anywhere else. Not Indonesia, nor Pakistan or Jordan. Only Gaza would've made sense if he has guts to do it.
In the end, all those living under dictators or occupation would like to hear actions, not hope or empty promises. They like the tone of "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In" not "More of the Same".
I'm sorry, emphatically stating: "He should have chosen Indonesia," just sounds silly. It's not in the Middle East. It's in South East Asia. Where the Middle Eastern conflict is, you know, not happening. Egypt is close enough to be in the conflict zone, and thus in the conversation. Yes. Serious human rights problems in Egypt. But what exactly would a speech in Indonesia achieve?
Serious human rights problems in the U S also.
This user is no longer registered.
I agree with Reza that Obama's presence may unfortunately give Mubarak a mantle of support, but Indonesia doesn't seem like the answer.
He must address the conflict, and the conflict has as its roots the land and the people of the Middle-East. Obama uses more than words to express himself. I expect the speech to heavily employ imagery that is unavailable in Indonesia.
I agree, this is nothing more than a photo-op and a "see I told you so" for Obama supports back home.
This reinforces my belief that Obama is not about change. Most American's do not realize Indonesia is a Muslim nation, therefore speaking "to the Muslim world" there would not have the same effect on uninformed Obama supports than it would speaking in Egypt.
Why can't he speak in more than one place? What a moronic article. Airforce One has clearance anywhere on this planet. Try again hater.
Every time I read one of your articles I keep reminding myself to borrow out one of your books when I have time.
Anyone who thinks this speech is aimed at all Muslims is foolish. Sure, Indonesia, Malaysia and other Muslim nations are important, but most of the oil is elsewhere. If muslims are important to the U.S., it is because of oil, and thus muslim to an American means Arab.
Egypt is still viewed as the "moderate" state because it is willing to talk to Israel, and thus gives our leaders some hope of playing to the Jewish lobby while not losing access to the oil. It all sounds like more of the same from Obama. Ignore the human rights records of all concerned, Israel, Egypt and Saudi, so long as 1) the oil keeps flowing and 2) AIPAC doesn't get too pissed off. No new thinking here.
Obama is an incredible political strategist and the decision to go to Egypt was no doubt a specific one. Reza is wrong to say that the President shouldn't go because of human rights violations. Hell, if that mattered, we wouldn't have anything in our stores since it's all made in China!
Whatever violations there might be, they are the responsibility of the Egyptian people. It is up to them to change their country. The US can no longer interfere in every atrocity man commits-even if our ego screams at the injustice.
We must become a PART of the world, not its OVERSEER.
One cog among many.
I think Obama is focussed on peace in the Middle East, which would make Indonesia a poor choice.
Exactly, you don't go to a peaceful and free state to decry oppressive governments and violent extremists.
indonesia has its share of violence and oppression in recent history as well....so really i dont kno what you are getting at uberjeff
This user is no longer registered.
I'll be candid. I wouldn't listen if he came here to the United States. But I would read it on thedailybeast.com and hope to catch some of it on the Daily Show.
oh ye of little faith naysayers
obama is a diplomat and i think egypt is a perfect place to start - remember the egyptians were part of the 9/11 raid in ny
finally a president with balls able to face a nation of covert terrorists - face on - great and rock on
It seems that Reza has forgotten the lesson Bush learned with the Palestinian elections. As much as Mubarak may not be the ideal leader, he brings a sense of certainty and stability to a very important and strategic country. What would happen if Mubarak allowed democratic elections and they Egyptians chose to empower the Muslim Brotherhood? Personally I would prefer that we allow Mubarak to remain in power. It's better than Egyptians electing a Hamas-like organization.
I think that thats an excellent point about the Muslim Brotherhood, which I am thinking is another big reason why Obama chose Egypt in the first place.
But as long as Mubarak stays in power Via Iron Fist he just empowers the Muslim Brotherhood, just as the corupt PLO came crashing down and Hammas now has control.
The middle east is a mess for many reasons but it has more to do with the US supporting these thugs, then we wonder why they hate us......
Excellent point. And it applies to all of the Muddled-East.
As long as you have oppression you do not have stability. However, we can no longer use force in an attempt to destroy and remake every oppressive regime. It didn't work in the cold war and it won't work now.
I think that using the power of compelling rhetoric and diplomatic pressure is a much better plan and I believe that Obama will take this speech as an opportunity to do just that. The man is nothing if not compelling.
stability in the middle east is actually best determined by being as far away from israel as possible.
living in the democratic nation just north to israel has kinda made that point clear...people in lebanon arent oppressed like in egypt and in syria, but guess who bombs us every other summer??
Democracy breeds democracy. Hypocrisy breeds hate.
All people seek their interests, and should be left to do so. When they find them, they protect them. If they are forced upon by outside pressure, they never grow.
That's a tough question, whether we should let democracy play out if it means we lose allies. I mean, think about it, how can we go to the Middle East and preach about the values of democracy when we don't allow democracy to pursue its own end in places like Egypt? However, we can see the results of that "pure" approach in the Palestinian Territories with the legitimization of Hamas through elections. So, it's a two-edged sword and perfectly highlights why the Middle East is such a problem. In our own hemisphere, democratically elected enemies like Chavez in Venezuela pose the same problem.
Although not ideal, I would have to disagree with you Reza that it is a massive blunder. I would assume his reasoning is to posture to the middle eastern Muslims, as this is where the hardship is felt. Furthermore any other Arab country does not exactly pose as a haven of democracy of freedom and the most moderate ones barely have the world stage recognition. He can still be critical of Mubarak and deliver a speech that countless numbers of Muslims around the world will hear. Especially those that have a gripe about the Palestinian dilemma.
Mr. Aslan makes some incredibly insightful points. But his position of Obama's administration making the mistake of speaking from Cairo is dangerously close to sounding supportive of isolationism, a policy that has proven to be domestically and internationally counterproductive to the ideals the US and Obama wish to promote: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Speaking in Indonesia, as Aslan suggests, would be something done by past administrations. Obama's only responsibility is to present himself and his administration in a geographic region which has been victimized by our recent foreign policy, and it is from this presentation that we can begin to heal the injuries--both on a larger governmental levels and in personal ways--that America has contributed to and caused.
We should cut off all communications with every nation that doesn't embrace our beliefs. In fact, we should condemn those that don't adhere to our philosophies because if they don't see that our views are right, they are obviously evil and want to destroy us.....They are either with us or against us.
Thank God, that half witted neocons are no longer calling the shots for our foreign policy.
I don't know about 'half witted' but I would go along with ignorant, arrogant, naive, pompous, misguided, counterproductive, dogmatic, blundering, bungling, strident, obnoxious, deluded, easily fooled, mislead, dangerous and somewhat freakish in character.
Who cares what the muslims think anyway ?? Especially the Egyptians !! Egypt is nothing more than a place where bigotry runs rampant and the State supports it. That's the problem with the muslim world. Westerners cannot relate to a society where the male dominates everything and women are just fuck bags. Let's just bomb 'em and take their oil. Heck, they didn't even know how to get it out of the ground until we showed them. Let's just make sure that Israel is safe, screw the rest of the "shiekdoms" !!!!
How can you criticize a country's bigotry in the same breath as stating that you don't care what Muslims think? You've discredited yourself with just that, let alone the vulgarities that follow. Think before you type and/or speak.
Dear woefully misinformed person,
If you wanted to bomb Egypt to take their oil, you would be wasting your ammo. They dont have much oil.
Go read a history book.
Forgive me for not not feeling the joy about Indonesia - the news from there is not good - they regularly burn churches and as well as there were days and days of protests last year to 'outlaw' the anti-violent-jihadist Islamic sect the Ahmadiyya. In Obama's interview with Zakaria GPS, he said that Islam in Indonesia had become more radical - from the time he was there.
Sorry - to say sorry again - but I think what Muslims want is that no one look at them - with a critical eye - as it stands there is not a single Islamic nation on earth - that offers freedom - as we know it here in the west.
So Egypt imprisons and tortures a few apostates from Islam, and forces their children and their children's children to remain Muslim - but so does Indonesia, and Malaysia and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Morocco and Libya and Mauritius (actually you would lose you citizenship here) and the list goes on.
It is a question of which dictator or religious authoritarian regime to deal with - in the Islamic world you simply have no other choice. These are simply men - with a 1300 year old book in their possession - who think that they somehow have been given - mystical powers - to control what others think and believe - within their Islamic realms (dar al-Islam vs dar al-Harb).
From your number of ever expanding Muslims - please - with respect subtract the 1 million Iranians who have secretly converted to Christianity - and who the Iranian government in a genocidal law - voted Sept 2008 - to put them to death.
Humanity cannot be held hostage - by this or any religion.
And what makes Islamic dictators - feel the need to be so - is that they are trying to control humanity - and so they have already lost.
Here is something Jesus said - those who humble themselves - shall be exalted
But those who exalt themselves shall be humbled.
At the moment Islam doesn't look humble to me!
This is not a question of cozying up to Muslims. The issue *is* the Middle East. Therefore President Obama's visiting Indonesia to deliver a speech about the ME doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Which of the free countries in the ME would you rather he visited? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Yemen? Truth be told they are all dictatorships or absolute monarchies and one is as good as the other.
And when, might I ask, are we going to hear from the Muslim countries in the ME about their plans for peace? Eh? Where are the moderate Muslims who abhor terrorist tactics and what are they doing to make a difference. I'm sick of you and the Israelis both trying to make it *our* problem when you are sitting back passively in the case of Muslims and acting irresponsibly and aggressively in the case of Israel. What are you waiting for? Just exactly what do you expect the United States to do on its own?
I wouldn't undercut Obama here. I would be surprised if he doesn't mention democracy or criticize Mubarak.
Yawn. When he finally catches up with all the photo ops Bush took over propagandic BS, let me know. IN the meantime, we got bin Laden delivering messages to the US about Obama's "danger" to the world, which basically puts him in big time cahoots with the GOP and the ex-President who let him live after they made big money oil deals. Who's listening to all this crap anyway?
I used to argue Middle-East policy with my father when I was younger. I was full of hope and in favor of pushing democracy and creating a Palestinian state, whereas he had grown cynical.
He would say to me, "The people who live there are brothers that have been fighting with each other since the time of the Old Testament. Do you think they're going to stop now?" That attitude used to make me mad, but I have to admit that after having witnessed 20 more years of frustrating bad behavior on all sides I better understand how appealing it is to give up.
I don't really have an opinion anymore on what to do in the Mid-East or on how to improve relations with Muslims in the world. I just don't know, but I do have a feeling that we have been used by our purported friend Israel and that we have paid a dear price for it. It feels like we walked into a trap.
"used by our purported friend Israel"
that is the truth....
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.