Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?
Posted on December 4, 2008
The question everyone is asking!
President-elect Barack Obama’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.
So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious —Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad — and the not-so-obvious — Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility.
The scuttlebutt is all about finding the right one. (The consensus is Cairo–which is a terrible idea. An Obama speech there would be read as a shameful acceptance of Mubarak’s oppressive rule.) But my question is: what would he say?
The global problems generating from within the Muslim world today are so odious and so obviously self-inflicted that any honest speech on the matter would offend and enrage Muslims the world over. At the same time, because of these very problems, a softball speech about Islam’s current role in global affairs would look like cowardly capitulation. If Obama splits the difference and mixes lukewarm praise with lukewarm condemnation, the stunt will be seen rightly as meaningless.
Obama gives great speeches, and this has encouraged an unwarranted faith in the utility of the medium. No matter how dazzling, oratory is the least effective weapon in the counterterrorism arsenal. If anything, a foreign policy speech aimed at resolving the conflict between the West and radical Islam would give enemies hope that the U.S. is shifting to a less proactive stance, and returning to the more symbolic approach of the pre-Bush days.
My own preference, if this simply must be done, is Dubai. No high drama in it, but their tourist industry likes westerners and their economy’s modern by Arab standards. “Less religion, more filthy lucre” isn’t the worst message to send. Exit question: Greenwald wonders what, precisely, Obama plans to say. Won’t it just end up being a rehash of his tedious speech on race, with both sides nominally faulted for their sins followed by a pander about Arab anger being “real” and everything ultimately blamed on economic insecurity?
If one believes that there is some potential benefit to such a speech, and I’m skeptical but open to the possibility, is there a more compelling location for that speech to take place than in Baghdad? Who cares if it validates the war in Iraq? Obama is to be the President of the United States — and he’s already validated the war by packing his administration with those who supported it. In any event, doesn’t Obama now share President Bush’s objectives for Iraq, if not the same strategy for getting there. A speech in Baghdad would be a chance to make bipartisan this country’s commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq. It would be a chance for Obama to assure those Iraqis who were hostile to President Bush and those who fear a new approach. And most of all, if Obama believes that his words may win hearts and minds, a speech in Baghdad could have the effect of saving American lives by further reducing the strain in relations between U.S. forces and the Iraqi people. How can Cooper be so flip about all that?
At this rate, the guy’s going to end up making Jimmah Carter look like a Hawk when it comes to radicals. Oh wait, no doubt he’ll also tell them to behave or he will slap their wrists … if the UN says he can.
Sure, he’s going to lecture them and work to come off as all strong and all. He isn’t dumb. Meanwhile, the mullahs will be laughing their asses off at the latest liberal American loon to come along.
Let him go to Baghdad and tell the Iraqis they are not worth 4,000 American lives.
Let him go to Baghdad and tell the Iraqis they are not worth $700 billion.
Let him go to Baghdad and tell the Iraqis the Surge did not work.
Let him go to Baghdad and tell the Iraqis that he supported keeping Saddam Hussein in power.
If he has guts he’ll choose Baghdad. If he wants a safer choice he could go with Turkey. Wherever he chooses for this pointless speech, pray they don’t forget the teleprompter.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Barack Obama, Elections, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Islam, Middle East, National Security, News, Politics As Usual, Stupidity, military
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I don’t care where he gives the speech just so long as he stays there.
How about Mecca? He could wave his new flag: a white cross on a white background.
in china, the country out of direct controversy,
if not in china, then soudi arabia, a mutiual patner with the USA.
In Ramallah or East Jerusalem of course. That’s the heart of the matter. Long live free Palestine
How about the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with plenty of advance publicity.
Who Cares?
He can kiss up to the muslims from anywhere, it will not make a difference. The radicals will just go right on killing and the (Supposed) moderates will ignore him.
He and his administration is probably the only ones that do care unless he is offering uncondtional surrender the Arab world will just laugh.
A man that seemed to have bought the American presidency with money and American naïveté and a man that carries Hussein as his middle name shall be accepted and welcomed anywhere in the moslem world. the question should be: what is he going to say, to whom, for what purpose and what to expect in return…forget that he is a good orator or not, just remember the behind the scenes speech writers, etc…etc…etc…
What about Jerusalem? That is the point anyway. You guys are majoring in the minors. Israel is the point of this conflict in the first place. Israel is the reason that these cousins are fighting each other. They won’t admit it. It is because we stand by and support Israel, that the Arab community ultimately hates us. I don’t know what he should say. God will give him the right thing to say.
If God should give him the right things to say, then it is logically accepted to say that god is the one that chose him to be what the world seemed to have been informed on November 4th. 2008. Let us, if you will, just leave God out of the equation and accept that due to human thinking ability and reasoning or human ignorance things do take shape, happen and ultimately lead to positive outcomes or disastrous ones.
As for Jerusalem, this is quite another topic to tangle or tango with.
Could this be what Biden warned of?
Sorry, that one was just to easy