Obama's Anti-American Address to Muslims Fails to Achieve its Purpose

During his campaign for President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama and his supporters discouraged the use of his middle name and dismissed any other references to his Muslim background as unfair, but now that he is in office, he uses his background as an asset in his efforts to establish better relations with Muslims abroad.

Obama used much of his address in Cairo to Muslims to criticize the West, the United States in particular, and especially former President George W. Bush. Obama even criticized Western colonization of Muslim lands, even though the U.S. never colonized one square inch of any Muslim state.

Obama says that he wants a new relationship between the United States and the Muslim world based upon mutual respect, as if the liberation by the U.S. under Bush of tens of millions of Muslims from brutal tyrannies was disrespectful. Obama's frequent criticism of the U.S. throughout his speech, makes the U.S. seem weak. His weak foreign policy, characterized by his offering of olive branches to mortal enemies like Iran without preconditions, have thus far proven unsuccessful. Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program seeme to make a moral equivalence with the possession by the U.S. of nuclear weapons, which will only undermine his own opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Obama's criticisms of the U.S. were disproportionate to his criticisms of Islamic militants. He never even used the words terrorist or terrorism, and yet made a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks by Muslim militants and the aggressive interrogation by the U.S. of three of the terrorists, which was enough for him to claim that the U.S. had failed to abide by its own principles. To make it even worse, Obama blamed the aggressive interrogations on anger, instead of on the intent of preventing any further attacks.

Obama criticized the Liberation of Iraq in three ways, although he did acknowledge that Iraqis were better off now that they are living in freedom than they were under the oppression of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. He criticized the imposition of a system of government on Iraq, called its liberation a "war of choice,"as if it were unnecessary, and suggested it were avoidable by declaring that he believed that the war proved that the U.S. should have depended more upon diplomacy. All three of Obama's criticisms were contradictory of his praise for the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.

First, the U.S. did not impose a system of government on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was the one who had imposed a tyrannical system of government on the Iraqi people. I note that his Baathist regime imposed socialism, for example, which was an idea foreign to the Iraqi people. The U.S., out of necessity, did choose a provisional goverment during the occupation, but even some of its leaders, like the Khurds, had been popularly elected, while others were leaders of other opposition parties or were religious or tribal leaders. But the system of government that Iraqis adopted oncen they approved their new constitution for the Republic of Iraq was one that they chose, not one imposed by the U.S. The proof that it was not the same as our system was that although it is representative, it is parliamentary in form, unlike the American system. Also, the Iraqi constitution acknowledges Islam. In short, the U.S. did not impose any system of government on Iraq, but liberated that country so that it could exercise self-determination. The recent reelection of the Iraqi governing party suggests contentment on the part of the Iraqi people, which is hardly a sign that Iraqis consider their government system to be one that was imposed by foreigners. In referring to Iraq's system of government, Obama undermined the premise of his speech of trying to establish mutual respect between the U.S. and the Muslim world by disrepecting the free choice of millions of Iraqis.

Second, Obama dismissed the Liberation as a "war of choice." All wars are wars of choice, even invasions by foreigners, as one could choose to make peace or even surrender instead of resisting. But what Obama and other liberal critics of the war, as well as isolationists, mean is that the U.S. could have survived without having liberated Iraq, as if U.S. survival were the standard for justification of war. Apparently, the survival of individual Americans does not justify war to them. Iraq's almost daily firing of missles at U.S. aircraft and its harboring and financing of terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans were acts of war, but to Obama, these attacks on the U.S. were tolerable acts, as was Iraq's defiance of United Nations resolutions to disarm its weapons of mass destruction programs. But one of the lessons of September 11 is that the U.S. must not tolerate terrorism anywhere. Obama made no mention in his speech of Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism.

Obama's third criticism of the Liberation of Iraq is that it might have been avoidable had the U.S. made more use of diplomacy. Apparently, 12 years and 14 U.N. resolutions was not enough diplomacy. And when liberals and isolationists argue that the U.S. should have relied more upon diplomacy, I ask: diplomacy with whom? With Saddam Hussein? He was already bound by a cease-fire and U.N. resolutions. No, they apparently mean diplomacy with the French and Germans. And to do what? To buy Hussein more time to stall weapons inspectors while he undermined the sanctions? The evidence learned since his overthrow is that he did retain some chemical weapons and materials and could have restarted his weapons of mass destruction program quickly once the sanctions, upon which he was cheating, had been lifted. Hussein also had missiles with ranges longer than permitted. Indeed, American troops in Kuwait were within his range, which refutes the notion that he did not pose a threat to Americans. Obama did not explain what he meant by more diplomacy. But he did attempt to justify more diplomacy by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "the less we use our power the greater it will be." However, Obama should contemplate why Jefferson used power against Muslims for economic reasons --the wars against the Barbary pirates.

In all his criticisms of Bush's decision to liberate Iraq, Obama contradicts his justifications for the war in Afghanistan. Obama, like other liberals opposed to the Liberation of Iraq, claims the U.S. imposed democracy on Iraq, but does not complain of an imposition of democracy in Afghanistan. He calls the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iraq with the blood of Americans on its hands a "war of choice," but regards the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Afghanistan that itself had never attacked Americans as justified. The Taliban, had never attacked Americans, although it had harbored terrorists who did. Hussein had both harbored terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans, as well as financed suicide bombers who also had targeted and killed. Obama makes the same error as other opponents of the Liberation of Iraq in claiming that Iraq had never attacked Americans. Finally, Obama complains of insufficient diplomacy after 12 years in Iraq, but does not complain of the shorter wait in Afghanistan. In short, Obama, like other supporters of the War in Afghanistan who oppose the Liberation of Iraq, are inconsistent because they oppose the Liberation of Iraq for other reasons, either because of ignorance of the facts or political opposition to Bush, or as political cover to conceal their discomfort even with the overthrow of the Taliban, as many isolationists and those on the far left opposed.

Moreover, Obama's criticisms of the overthrow of Iraq's terrorist-sponsoring regime disrepects the American troops he commands who have been serving there. Instead, he should express gratitude to them for their service in the War on Terrorism. As I have noted in previous posts, Obama mostly has continued Bush's policies in the War on Terrorism, including in Iraq, but Obama's statements continue to be irresponsible. Going to such absurd lengths to seem humble in order to be sensitive to any Muslim perception of American arrogance only makes the U.S. seem all the weaker to its enemies, and therefore, all the more contemptible. Indeed, Obama undermines his own policy of mutual respect between Americans and Muslims if he fails to demonstrate enough respect for America, for if he cannot respect America, he cannot expect Muslims to reciprocate. Furthermore, no one can win an idealogical conflict, such as the struggle against Islamic militancy, by undermining the truth, as Obama does every time he criticizes the U.S. for defending itself and its allies against Muslim militants.