A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Ricochet member Trace Urdan writes:
I would like to know if Victor sees any merit in the president's attempt to appeal to ordinary Muslims via his bully pulpit? Does celebrating Ramadan in the White House or wishing Persians Happy New Year accomplish anything that can aid our efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere? If not, is it a matter of degree? What if the Voice of America launched a 24/hour TV news channel in Arabic? Can any of this soft diplomacy have a material impact?
George Bush, we forget, did a lot of this. Yet Obama made the argument in his al-Arabiya interview that his unique heritage and nomenclature would allow him to appeal to the Muslim world in a way someone like Karen Hughes (who went on several good will tours) had not. Apparently he thought that a jihadist would stop, ponder, and conclude, "Hmmm, why am I assembling IEDs for a Times Square attack, when the president's middle name is Hussein and his father was a Muslim? I better stop immediately since the U.S. is now not like Bush's America of two years ago." I'm sorry—but I don't think such pathological murderers quite think that way.
It is always as a rule better to be "nice" than gratuitously rude. But that said, 2009 saw the most foiled terrorist attempts in any single year since 9/11. The Cairo myth-making speech, the Ground Zero presidential demagoguing of opponents, the often extreme anti-Bush outbursts by John Brennan, the counter-terrorism czar, the NASA new directive to outreach to Muslims—all this and more have not persuaded bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri, or a Maj. Hassan or Mr. Mutallab that they should go easy on the West.
Why? Because their hatred of the West was never predicated on a particular president (remember that Jimmy Carter's therapeutic foreign policy still won him the title of Great Satan in 1979), or even a particular act (the U.S. has been unusually kind to Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and helped to free them in Kuwait and Afghanistan), but is deep-seeded and long-standing, involving the primordial emotions such as perceived honor, fear, and pride. Note that bin Laden is not calling for jihad against Russia for its near-genocidal destruction of the Muslims of Grozny. The reason that there are not suicide bombers in Germany demanding back land from Poland, or in South Korea trying to force U.S. troops to leave, is simply that both are successful societies full of successful people who make their views known in public fora where discussion and debate are aired and adjudicated.
In much of the Middle East, the reverse is true: failed states full of angry citizens who daily are made aware--through cell phones, the internet, cable TV—that life is far better (freer, more prosperous, and safer) outside the Arab Islamic world. Yet rather than address the causes of this disequilibrium—tribalism, statism, autocracy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance—they unleash their frustrations against a very visible, very successful hyper-power like the US and to a lesser extent Israel. That is in part because Arabs perceive that there are few consequences or reckoning to their venom, and, in part, because so many Americans offer them cheap talking points (it is no accident that a Zawahiri in his writings praises a Jimmy Carter's book, the work of Noam Chomsky, or references Michael Moore) and encouragement.
So, yes, we should be nice and pleasant with the understanding that whether a jihadist acts out his frustrations hinges largely on whether he has bought into the propaganda that all his own personal unhappiness and angst have a global source in the U.S, and that there are many intellectuals, in and out of the West, that will confirm the righteousness of his paranoia.
Finally, appearing weak only encourages such violence. After the three-week brilliant victory in March-April 2003, Gaddafi gave up his WMD arsenal, Syria got out of Lebanon, Dr. Khan was shut down in Pakistan, and the Gulf states curbed their subsidies to terrorists. By 2007, however, anti-Americanism in Middle Eastern nations arose again commensurate with our apparent incompetence in Iraq. And yet by 2010 and apparent victory in Iraq, the U.S. was regaining greater influence among the Arab community, especially as it looked for our leadership to stop Iran. Proven competence and strength, especially in pursuit of a good cause, can do far more than expressions of good intentions; a weak nation that is most considerate and full of deference will nevertheless be ignored or despised if it loses wars—given the universal nature of man.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
How terrible it is that the wheel must be reinvented from generation to generation, to use an analogy. How will civilization survive if the wisdom of the ages cannot be successfully passed on?
Sep '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Further point: Muslims suicide bomb other Muslims in the Middle East, so I can't see why Obama would think he would be in for any great deference on behalf of an angry jihadist.
May '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Victor -- Thank you for responding.
I understand why outreach fails with tribal populations, but what about the highly-educated, relatively sophisticated citizens of Iran? The Noruz greeting for example seemed a deliberate attempt to speak past the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership directly to the Iranian people.
Is force the only solution? Is there no possibility of pushing for moderation through popular pressure on politicians? Or is it too difficult to exercise influence in this way in the midst of hot wars and predator drone strikes. Are there any parallels with the collapse of communism? Or is the cultural gulf too wide?
Claire -- What about in Turkey? Is there a sense among the population that they like the U.S. more in an Obama administration? That they notice the observance of Ramadan in the White House? Are these gestures even noticed by the average Turk? Or to any degree that can matter in influencing the government?
I guess what I'm really asking is whether the Obama approach has opened any constructive dialogue at any level that was unavailable to us before? And I'm not erecting a straw man here -- I really want the answer to be yes.
Jun '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Professor,
I've never been satisfied with the explanations about what motivates Muslims to terrorism. Leaders like bin Laden and Zawahiri offer us no consistent message from which we might draw a conclusion. Their public pronouncements seem aimed at the American MSM without revealing anything of truth. I have my own theory.
Osama bin Laden grew up as a minor son in a wealthy family. He had everything he could want for the asking: wealth, wives, and leisure. The one thing he lacked was status. I think it was the lack of meaning in his life that motivated him to join the mujahideen in Afghanistan. To hear him tell the story you would think the Arab contingent was almost entirely responsible for victory over the Soviets. There is more of self-promotion in his exegesis than there is of piety. And yet it wasn't enough. He declared war on the US for egocentric reasons.
Bin Laden kept attacking US targets, but his efforts drew an inconsequential response from the Clinton administration. He planned 9/11 because an attack on the US mainland couldn't be ignored. It demanded the recognition that had for so long eluded him.
Edited on Oct 19, 2010 at 8:17amRe: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Victor Davis Hanson:
In much of the Middle East, the reverse is true: failed states full of angry citizens who daily are made aware--through cell phones, the internet, cable TV—that life is far better (freer, more prosperous, and safer) outside the Arab Islamic world.
No, I'm not sure anyone really grasps this about the West unless they've seen it with their own eyes. I've met more than a few Turks who simply don't believe what they see on television about the West. They think it's all elaborate propaganda that couldn't possibly be true, or that it's all horribly blighted by genocidal racism and utter spiritual depravity. I've tried to explain the First Amendment, for example. "No, no, that's not true," I'm told (in a voice that suggests I'm very sweetly naive). "Of course you'll be arrested if you criticize the government."
Don't forget also that understanding what you read on the Internet about the West generally requires understanding at least one Western language.
May '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
I think it is misguided to think US foreign policy is the predominant cause of strife in the Muslim world. And I think Obama thinks he can change their minds, but it's not about him. There are many factors at work, and US interventions haven't lessened them. I think there is a growing viewpoint within the Beltway, that US military might will not suppress Islamic radicalism and encourage moderate Muslims to step forward. Nor will any amount of concessions or apologies warm the hearts of the muslim world toward us. We should drop the moral imperative argument that we are bringing freedom and democracy to the region. They aren't buying it, and I don't either. We have acted and should act in our own foreign policy interests. This is no time to grow a conscience. What might work is a Cold War style engagement where we basically strategically endorse civil wars covertly through funding and weapons. Force them to fight each other. It will get worse before it gets better, but they will tire of fighting and losing their families to sectarianism and extremism. Only then will moderate Muslims step forward to fill the void.
Edited on Oct 19, 2010 at 9:08amMay '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I've tried to explain the First Amendment, for example. "No, no, that's not true," I'm told (in a voice that suggests I'm very sweetly naive). "Of course you'll be arrested if you criticize the government."
Don't forget also that understanding what you read on the Internet about the West generally requires understanding at least one Western language. · Oct 19 at 8:54am
But Claire -- Surely that is reason for hope. Surely there must be a way to blast truth through -- particularly in an ostensibly open society like Turkey. A Turkish broadcast of the Disney channel? That might engender disrespect but surely not hatred.
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
There was some initial enthusiasm about Obama, it's mostly dissipated, I sense. Turks hear him talking to them directly (whatever he says) for a few minutes a year. They hear what their own politicians and media say about the US for the other 364 days, 23 hours and 56 minutes. Most Turks love Bill Clinton--who knows why; it wasn't because they thought he was especially sympathetic to Muslims. Obama could announce tomorrow morning that the Supreme Court will be razed to build a mosque, but if he announces directly thereafter that the Armenian Genocide Resolution has passed, they'll be burning US flags in the street. Victor's right--don't go out of the way to offend, but don't imagine Ramadan dinners in the White House make a huge difference. It's much less about what we say than about what their own leaders and opinion-makers say.
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
I have lots of thoughts about this .. remind me again. I don't think the Disney channel is the ticket, but we could definitely be doing a much better job.
Aug '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Most Turks love Bill Clinton--who knows why; it wasn't because they thought he was especially sympathetic to Muslims.
I've met several young Balkan Muslim immigrants who simply adore Clinton. They believe Clinton saved their families from genocide in the Milosevic days.
Turkey is, well, more next to the Balkans than in them, but could this have anything to do with it?
Jun '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
To a narcissist like Obama, everything is about him. As I understand Professor Hanson, most diplomacy is about the interests of particular nations vis-a-vis one another. Thus, while Obama wishes to make it about him, most of the rest of the world could not care less: they are dealing with the United States, and what they see in Obama is someone to either ignore or take advantage of.
Aug '10
Re: A U.S. Foreign Policy Marked By Competence and Strength
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Most Turks love Bill Clinton--who knows why; it wasn't because they thought he was especially sympathetic to Muslims.
I've met several young Balkan Muslim immigrants who simply adore Clinton. They believe Clinton saved their families from genocide in the Milosevic days.
Turkey in 1992, or at least those Turks who were reading Zaman in 1992, were paying attention to the fortunes of Yugoslavian Moslems. But I mention that just for the record. I dislike every "think piece" about the Middle East because every single one could be titled "Middle Easterners: Crazy Or Stupid?" Diplomacy, naively defined as "being nice to people so they'll give stuff to you," just doesn't matter. Force, guile, and gold matter.