Nicholas Guariglia

One of President Obama’s main foreign policy objectives, as he sees it, is to enhance our national reputation throughout the Islamic world. This is an admirable goal. During the Bush years, tensions ran high between Muslims and the U.S., and Obama wants to reverse that – understandably so.

Asinine history.

But eleven months into his term, President Obama’s shortcomings in this regard are becoming more apparent. There are several missteps worth noting.

Let’s start with the serial reference to his middle name, Hussein, for example. While savvy Americans see strategic advantage in Obama’s ancestry, relying on Obama’s personal background or biography to win over the hearts and minds of the Middle East ends up, in a counterintuitive way, bifurcating Obama from the rest of the United States. It excuses Muslim prejudices and encourages their reinforcement.

Who else in the world is allowed to openly embrace the election of a foreign leader based solely on the color of said leader’s skin, or other ethnic commonalities? This is cheap and momentary. Would Joe Biden’s America — or Mitt Romney’s or Hillary Clinton’s — revert back to its Great Satanism, for instance? President Obama would be been far wiser, and his words far more enduring, if he instead tried to convince the Muslim world to appreciate the United States both when our leaders do and do not look like him.

And who with a cerebrum could say with a straight face that the key to assuaging our adversary’s rage is recitation of their casus belli? Whenever Obama invokes the specter of colonialism, he is inadvertently conceding that age-old injustices are legitimate grievances in the contemporary world. This is not only asinine history, it is precarious statesmanship. It allows our enemies to hold themselves to a lower behavioral standard (and it encourages our allies to continue to allow our enemies to do so). Rather than reaffirming jihadist propaganda, President Obama should instead remind the Muslim world that Western leaders do not — and would never be allowed to — cite the 400-plus years of Islamic conquest that preceded colonialism as justification for modern-day military interventions.

No European or American leader would ever think of referencing centuries-old historical grievances to validate actions in the here and now. No one in Western society would tolerate such exploitation from their leadership, which is all the more reason why we shouldn’t grant our theocratic opponents this bloodcurdling privilege, either.

Underscoring al Qaida’s claims will never undermine them. Smart guy that he is, Mr. Obama will probably come to realize this soon enough. He hasn’t yet.

Furthermore, in what way is it intellectually honest, or strategically advantageous, to go to Cairo and serve up red meat to a Middle East audience — Iraq, a belittled “war of choice”; our post-9/11 efforts, “contrary to our traditions and values” — when the despotic sheikhs and tin pot presidents-for-life sitting in the audience not only forwarded much of the faulty Iraq intelligence to CentCom, but are also well aware of (and are still willing participants in) the rendition programs, surveillance programs, indefinite detention of al Qaidists, et al that Obama trashes in the vernacular but continues and expands in the material?

When that ogre Bush did it, it was purportedly fascism. Now it’s hope and change?

Atmospherically, Obama’s approach to the Islamic world seems wise. He tells them what they already know. Substantively, however, this strategy is counterproductive. There have been few public calls for the release of political prisoners or dissidents. There has been no word on reforming Islamic doctrine. There has been no clarity on women’s rights, no emphasis and little repudiation of honor killings or genital mutilation. There is no talk about the Islamic world’s brutal treatment of Palestinians, or of polls that show widespread support for suicide bombings and violence in the name of Islam. There is no talk about defending freedom of speech and opposing those who have killed, and would kill again, because of an “inflammatory” movie or cartoon. There is no word about the rabid anti-Semitism across the Middle East’s state-run media (there’s no talk about state-run media, in general). Nothing is said about the religious indoctrination (and radicalization) of young impressionable minds throughout the region’s madrassas. There’s hardly ever talk about the blood Americans have shed (Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) to liberate, feed or defend innocent Muslims from their more (ahem) devout coreligionists who want them dead.

President Obama is a big proponent of finding common ground. That much is clear. But here’s the problem: Leadership isn’t always about finding common ground. Sometimes it’s about winning — winning the debate, winning the argument; not ignoring the fact that there even is an argument. Leadership is often about telling people what they do not want to hear. President Obama doesn’t seem to appreciate this. For a man so confident in his ability to rhetorically persuade and convince his counterparts, this is an unusual characteristic.

One Response to “Will Obama learn that you can’t always find common ground?”