Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Assessing Results
The obvious question is “Are we getting help?” The policy sounds sensible, but does it actually work? If our security strategy is based on the hope that fellow Muslims will inform on the radicals, I can’t help but wonder about what we’ve learned about this and recent attacks. After all:
- The attackers, obviously, weren’t appeased by how Islam was described. These attackers don’t care about our careful use of descriptions.
- Authorities believe that the Orlando attacker’s wife likely knew something about — and may have been involved in — the planning of the attack, but said nothing.
- Even if we accept that the attacker was on the authorities’ watch list, and even if that process was the culmination of cooperation … so what? The same sensitivity that elicited the information in the first place was canceled out when the suspect was let go because of … sensitivities.
- The jihadi attackers in this country are routinely depicted as falling under the radicalization of various imams and teachers, who couldn’t care less about whether America wants to respect them.
If Obama believes that refusing to mention Islam in connection with terrorism is sound policy, then we should ask him to show us its good fruits. Is there actual evidence — as Obama assumes — that if we show respect for Islam, they’ll show respect for us? The evidence is mostly to the contrary: Homegrown terrorists concluded long ago that America hates them, and talking nicely about them won’t make one whit of difference. This is different from Iraq, but the theory of Muslim cooperation in Iraq proved one thing … their cooperation was heroic, but it wasn’t enough.
Besides, it strikes me as galling that this president wants to lecture us about eliciting cooperation from Muslims, when his policy of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan has exposed thousands of Muslims who’d cooperated with us to ISIS retaliation. Most of the rest of the world has realized that Obama’s “respect” for them lasts as long as it’s convenient and that — as soon as they’ve outlasted their usefulness to him — they can expect to be thrown under the next available bus. The president sacrificed all those Iraqi cooperators to secure a few political and legacy points.
Obama’s policy against radical Islam is little more than showing them deference in the hope that they will reciprocate. But do they? And if they simply don’t care about American respect in the first place, how does this possibly qualify as a long term strategy?
Personally, I am flexible with regard to strategy as long as it achieves its end. Ideally, we should have reciprocity. I suspect Obama feels too guilty about “Western imperialism” to make any demands.
One thing that frustrates me is the sense that in some of these cases we are being gamed by people on the ground. Not just Obama. I worry that as outsiders often with very obvious agendas whether it wouldn’t be difficult to manipulate us because it’s not hard for people on the ground to know what various administrations want to hear. I worry that it is hard to get the feedback we need to make good strategic decisions.
Obama is not helping us win by refusing to identify Islam as the primary motivation of radical Islamic terrorists.
Nice essay. Appeasement has failed as you outline. Shame on this president for abandoning our Muslim allies. So many who risked everything were betrayed. I expect those allies or their descendants would have helped soften the hate in Islam over time.
I don’t know. I see what you are saying but we worry about these things too much.
This is like a team announcing they won’t do bat flips when they also rarely hit home runs. We can say “How’s the no bat flips working out for ya?” But that misses the point that they can’t hit.
Also, no bat flip could be a good move for a team full of bombers.
Obama’s team can’t hit so his gestures aren’t meaningful to me either way.
Well reasoned essay KC.
I think the same can be said of Pope Francis. He makes the same presumption on restraint and deference when he states “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (EG 253). The Pope has a giant bully pulpit to do good in this area, yet he fails, just as Obama does.
An excellent question, but I’m not sure what follows is the right criteria by which to answer it. For example, I’d imagine that a very important datum is whether such language gives greater cover to allied Muslim countries, who would have more domestic trouble from radicals if the American president used more “provocative” language (scare quotes intentional).
One thing that struck me was Obama’s idea that rhetoric could inflame Islamic sensibilities and make them less likely to cooperate, while drone strikes which we know will kill innocents won’t inflame them as well. Why don’t we let less of them in so we don’t have to worry about getting them to cooperate with finding their own bad apples in the first place?
At the risk of invoking the fallacy of the false middle:
I could understand Bush’s verbal gymnastics regarding Islam. We needed Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani and Saudi support. But Obama pissed away Iraq and proclaimed a surrender timetable in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis no longer hide their tacit support for the Taliban and Obama dumped the Saudis in pursuit of love from Iran.
If it is US policy to retreat and detach entirely, then we no longer need be diplomatic about the sickness in Islamic culture and how it affects us.
The problem for President Narcissus is that his chosen enemy is American culture and history and our world leadership status. But actual threats and enemies keep intruding on his solipsistic personal adventure. Having to notice that we have actual enemies is an rude intrusion on the mental masturbation and narrative spinning that is the sum and substance of Obama’s leadership and legacy.
Honestly – if you do it that should be because it’s the right thing to do. If this respect/acceptance is conditional or transactional it’s fake and people will get that.
We know that the PC mob is an abusive, ignorant, vicious, unrestrained and memoryless minority. yet our media and academia live in such fear of violating the precepts of this digital mob that they join the mob to prove themselves. So are we saying that Muslims who live here, unlike the rest of us, would not respond to fear of an anti islamic back lash? That incentives to cooperate would not work on them, instead might turn some of them into radical threats? That fear of no visas for their families would have no effect? That they would continue to attend radical mosques even if that could put them on a watch list and make it more difficult to get a job? That we must not allow employers controlling key access points to vulnerabilities to exercise judgement about risk lest they violate some Federal law, or regulation or prejudice. By aggressively pretending that Islam is not part of the problem we remove all incentives for normal Muslims to cooperate with authorities, to speak out, to distance themselves from radicals and impose social costs on them. Social pressure is vital to such communities and we’ve given it all over to the most radical. The president is a community organizers, that is how he works and thinks, are we to suppose he doesn’t know what he is doing?
This is sarcasm, right?
Surely no one believes that this disgraceful, manipulative, traitor of a charlatan actually believes what he’s saying.
I’m sure he touched on the basic tenets of the scientific method when he was a kid. If a theory proves itself to be false, then you acknowledge it as false.
If you keep repeating the same false theory in the face of evidence to the contrary simply for the sake of people that don’t know better, then you’re lying.
This bastard isn’t stupid, he’s evil.
I’m sure in his mind he’s a great hero but once you start lying to people to cover your ass, you’re scum.
I hope he is tarred and feathered and frozen in carbonite and memorialized forever on the White House lawn.
Screw this guy.
?
……still waiting….
Good post, KC. The radicals don’t care what we say or think. Frankly, I don’t know that the moderates do either, except that they’re uncomfortable with the fact that there could be guilt by association. That can’t be helped. I’m also beginning to believe that aside from taking the Left’s approach to the PC language, Obama still has a sentimental attachment to Islam and doesn’t want to do anything remotely to hurt it.
Our President believes speaking respectfully towards Islam–refusing to utter phrases such as radical Islam or Islamism, softens the tone and therefore helps to build bridges to the Muslim community.
I too believe in building bridges–draw bridges over moats is more what I had in mind. 7th century behavior understands strength and self respect. I would love to see a President who promotes the greatness of Western Civilization and welcomes Muslims who can find a path towards merging their beliefs, their Koran, with our civilization. Any who cannot, are welcome to stay away or get shown the “door”.
Fair point, except we have to acknowledge that this is a cornerstone of Obama’s policy against one of the most constant threats that the country faces. It’s at the core of Obama’s security policy. As such, we do have a reasonable expectation that it should provide results.
Besides, I have a problem with the idea that if we mention Islam in the same breath as terrorism, all of the Muslims would ignore any distinctions and leap to the conclusion that America is at war with Islam. In other words, we have to watch our words lest we set off their hysterical response – and that would be our fault? If the Islamic world can’t see that we regard radical movements in their religion as a legitimate threat – based on the fact that those movements have actually killed Americans – then there is no reasoning with them anyway.
We do, in fact, make distinctions. We aren’t at war with all of Islam, but we are in a fight with those elements within Islam who are trying to kill our citizens. If the Muslim world refuses to acknowledge that distinction, then our acquiescence to that refusal actually validates it.
And he seems to genuinely believe this is the case. Do you think otherwise? (Agree with him or not is another issue.)
If you consistently make the distinction, I think they’re good with it. But a lot of people on the right don’t make that distinction consistently or with much conviction.
The thing is, I think it’s completely reasonable for you to call out the leaders of Muslim majority countries when they pay lip service to tolerance (as a short hand) but act in a way that illustrates that they don’t really believe in it.
By the same token, why should they be satisfied by lip service from you? Neither of you are doing the other a favour – if it’s truth, it’s truth, and if it isn’t, it’s not.
I am curious about the legacy BHO supposedly is chasing. I really don’t get how policies that don’t seem to augur well for the future, including abandoning Iraq and, more starkly, the deal with Iran, can be seen as wonderful legacies. Does this add up?
He is counting on the negative effects coming after he is out of office. Even if the seeds for those effects are being sown now, if he is out of office then it isn’t his fault, right?
He can count on the media to make that case for him.
Well, as the OP suggests, that policy must be assessed. The difference, of course, is that showing respect is one thing, but it’s something else when you want that respect reciprocated. The question now is not whether we should respect Islam; it’s whether that respect is reciprocated and can form the basis of an effective policy.
Well, the policy depends on building trust. It’s a dynamic, step-by-step process. When you’re playing tit-for-tat, you have to get some tat before you offer any more … well, you know.
Now as I said, Obama’s pullout from Iraq was a disaster for building trust. This post isn’t a complaint against Islam – it’s a complaint against Obama’s policy that speaking nicely will build trust.
The most dangerous part of all these ridiculous verbal gymnastics is not the toadying equivocations which are farcical, it is how this denial of reality trickles down into policy. For example DHS policy is to never even mention the words “jihad”, “sharia” or “takfir” how does this type of policy translate into protecting Americans if officials cannot even discuss the threat?
Recall that Omar Mateen had previously been investigated due to a report from coworkers on his sympathy for terrorist groups and fantasies about violence. What was the result? The investigation was dropped because the FBI assumed it was just talk due to him, “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith”.
That is what this policy of official blindness regarding the relation of Islam to terrorism results in, agents who are blind and citizens who are dead.
Then that sounds like a paradox because they have many other lines in the Koran that justify all they do and have been doing for centuries. While the Pope is helpful with speaking out for peace, it is not his job, but the Muslim clerics job to rectify this among their faith and stop the radical evilness that has permeated it.
It’s too late for O to change his way of talking – the Middle East went up in flames, he has been slow to do much, has openly shunned our allies on several occasions to where they no longer believe America has their back, while propping up or appeasing the bullies. The damage is done and it will take a long time to repair on so many levels. He can give a dozen speeches til he leaves office, no one is listening, especially not the thugs across the world. I hope we can get through the year with no more trouble – deeply sad for our country.
Well, that’s my point – the Pope is speaking in error – just as he did when he compared jihad to the Great Commission. He ought to be proclaiming the evil in Islam and calling us to pray for their conversion for the salvation of their souls – that is his bully pulpit. But he panders just as Obama does. The jihad against the West from Islam isn’t hatred or extremism but a civilizational war that we need to engage on every front.
I wonder if it is the Pope’s job to get involved politically to that extent or to proclaim The Great Commission and draw people to the faith? He would not speak out in a divisive way I don’t think – maybe I am wrong and he should – I know when Pope Benedict spoke out, Muslims had a meltdown about a few innocent words.
If I were debating Obama following his lecture on how naming the issue is irrelevant, I would tear his argument to shreds.
I have an MBA and over 20 years of experience in a Fortune 50 company. I have attended countless seminars given by leading experts in the field of leading organizations through significant change. There is a lot of literature available on this topic. Just about every expert I can think of agrees that step 1 in bringing about change is some variation of identifying the opportunity/issue and creating a sense of urgency and elevating perspective/awareness. How does Obama expect to stop Islamic terrorist attacks if he skips the first step in the process?
Let me put this a different way. Can a medical doctor prescribe treatment before diagnosing the disease? Obama refuses to properly diagnose the disease. It is not workplace violence or a gun control problem. Until he identifies the disease he cannot treat it. Maybe he does not want to solve the problem of Islamic terrorists and that is why he refuses to diagnose it.
Pope Francis should either speak the truth or remain silent. Providing false and misleading information is inappropriate and ultimately harmful to the long term goal of defeating Islamic jihad.
I’d say that the problem with not-identifying radical Islam is the same problem as “anti-profiling.”
Profiling makes an assumption that everyday science depends on: namely, events have causes. And when a set of causes (even correlations) appear every time an event happens, then it’s reasonable to anticipate that event when you detect that set of causes. That’s basically the principle of induction and it’s the core of most science.
Like science, however, induction is contrasted with deduction, which is a much more certain result.
The argument is that you cannot deduce with certainty an impending crime just because you’ve detected a set of correlations. You can’t deduce that a Muslim will commit an act of terror just because he’s Muslim. That’s true. But the problem with Obama’s policy is that it also prevents induction. Refusing to acknowledge radical Islam as a correlation is to needlessly throw away legitimate evidence.
In itself of course just speaking nicely doesn’t build trust – but it seems like a necessary base to build a good relationship.
Are you getting cooperation or resistance from most Muslim countries? IMHO mixed, but mostly some level of support, especially from Governments. If you do a cold pro/con list, rather than listen to what your heart tells you.
Do they like you? Probably as much as you like them – Iow, ambiguous about the country, positive about individuals they meet and like. You aren’t the only country that’s being polite :-)
It isn’t about speaking nicely or liking anyone – it’s about associating Islam as a contributing cause to the attacks.