“America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”
So said our new president in his interview Tuesday with Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language satellite news channel. At first the words washed over me. Then I did some simple math. Let’s see… 20 or 30 years ago… that would be 1989 or 1979.
What was happening in relations between America and the Muslim world back then? Not relying on memory alone, I consulted Bernard Grun’s reference book, The Timetables of History.
It turns out that in 1989 U.S. fighters shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, creating a vacuum that would eventually be filled by the Taliban. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death for “blasphemy.” Hundreds died in Lebanon’s long-running civil war while Hezbollah militants were torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.
And 1979? That was an even darker year-in many ways a turning point for the worse in the Middle East. That was, after all, the year that the shah of Iran was overthrown. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who launched a war against the West that is still unfolding. One of the first actions of this long struggle was the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and all of its personnel as hostages. The same year saw the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, some of whom would later morph into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was also the year that Islamic militants temporarily seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, an event that drove the Saudi royal family to become ever more fundamentalist.
In other news in 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was hanged by General Zia al-Hak, inaugurating a long period when Pakistan would be under the effective control of the army in alliance with Islamic militants. That year mobs also attacked U.S. embassies throughout the Muslim world from Kabul and Islamabad to Tripoli. The one bright spot in 1979 was the signing of the Camp David Accord between the US, Egypt, and Israel, which did not, unfortunately, auger a “new” Middle East as many optimists hoped.
So this is the sort of “partnership” between the U.S. and the Middle East that President Obama would like to see? If his predecessor had suggested any such thing he would by now be a subject of ridicule for late-night comedians and daytime talk show hosts, and rightly so.
This is actually a revealing slip. To wit, it reveals two things: First, Obama’s profound ignorance about most aspects of foreign policy, including the recent history of the Middle East. A second, and related point, is his tendency to blame the ills of the region on the previous administration-something that is only possible if you started following the Middle East around 2001 and have little idea of what came before. It is then all too easy to claim, as Obama did on the campaign trail, that it was George W. Bush’s “disengagement” from the peace process and his “disastrous” war with Iraq that messed up the Middle East. Only someone with a longer view would realize how profoundly messed up the region was long before Bush came into office.
Even if we go back before the current era of religious extremism that began in earnest in 1979 we find evidence that from the American perspective the Middle East was hardly a happy place. Think of the OPEC oil embargo that began in 1973, the numerous wars between Israel and the Arabs, Eisenhower’s landing of marines in Lebanon in 1958, the Suez Crisis of 1956, the overthrow of Iran’s prime minister in 1953, and so on.
To the extent that we had any stability in the region it was purchased at the expense of alliances with distasteful regimes like those of the Shah of Iran and the Saudi royal family, once considered the “twin pillars” of American policy in the Middle East. Obama is dreaming if he thinks there was a wonderful “partnership” with Arab or Muslim regimes that he can “restore.”
UPDATE: In the comments section, “Elen” writes: “I wonder if Columbia/Harvard education is overrated or Obama is simply an idiot. I think the answer is both.” I think the answer is neither. From everything I have seen, Obama is a smart man who received a good education at Columbia and Harvard. The problem is that he spent his entire career in domestic policy and politics. He has little knowledge or background in national security affairs—probably about the same amount as anyone who was kind of paying attention in college more than twenty years ago but hasn’t paid much attention since. My guess is that when it comes to foreign policy he knows only marginally more than Sarah Palin—another smart person who simply didn’t have to bone up on this subject before running for national office. You can see the difference when Obama is talking—he is crisp and confident on domestic issues, halting and uncertain on foreign issues. I only hope for all of our sakes that he is a fast learner.
No Republican counteroffensive can work until the Republican officeholders as a group develop some backbone and roll out an alternative vision to Obama’s in concrete terms people can relate to. The weakest link now seems to be in the Senate, where too many quasi-Republicans fraternize with the Democrats.
Agreed. The problem that Rush really demonstrates is that there are no GOP standard bearers who can get through the noise and articulate a vision. Rush knows who he is and what he believes and is very effective at saying so. It would appear the democrats have successfully linked the negative Rush to the GOP and has good polls showing the GOP taking it in the pants from non-GOPers.
The real danger is that Obama cannot afford to take him on forever. Rush’s audience apparently is growing, which now exposes more people to his ideas which diffuses the caricature his political opponents paint. Obama is the president for goodness sake he cannot be seen to be picking on a private citizen. Everytime the democrats have gone after him, they have paid politically for the folly, for when it comes to gaining attention and throwing the spotlight back at the democrats own hypocrasy Rush is pretty effective. The real concern is that while everyone loves Obama, they don’t like Congress at all really, and people don’t really like the specifics of any of Obama’s programs when they are explained to them. Rush’s counterpunch came yesterday and it was all about issues. Obama cannot stay there.
If there were a bright articulate ambitious GOP politiican out there now is the time to step forward, your plate has been set.
Rush is an acquired taste, unfortunately not acquired by enough people to make a difference. However many listen to him, it’s a niche market, a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, the witless Republicans — they got to be even stupider under Bush — are stuck with this cigar-smoking, fat multi-millionaire as the face of the party. Check out Gawker to see the Louis the Fourteenth palace he lives in. Like it or not, we’re entering a populist phase where bashing the greedy rich will pay off at the voting booth. Carville and the rest of the cynical political operatives know this. Obama and Gibbs may back off, but they won’t.
Banjo,
I assume you’re happy to forego the “fat” vote.
I think Rush is terrific – but it’s true that his lifestyle, and, these days, his physique, invite harpooning by unscrupulous opponents. But Rush isn’t charging taxpayers for those White House bacchanalias and he isn’t threatening to tax and spend the rest of us into oblivion. If nobody else will take on the Thin Man, we should be grateful at least Rush can still rise to the occasion.
Wow. Jennifer Rubin is like three days behind on the “putting away childish things” counter to the whole Rush flap. Maybe the fax machine is out of toner?
Face it. You Republicans lost the news cycle. You lost the credibility of your new RNC chairman. You allowed your brandless party to be branded with the image of Rush Limbaugh, who has approval levels lower than George Bush and Nancy Pelosi. Plus the split screen visuals: old fat sweaty abrasive pig (your leader) vs. young, thin, cool, smart, attractive president (America’s leader). And you proved that your elected “leaders” are without testicles, and must publicly kiss the ring of a drug-addled gasbag of a radio entertainer. Would anyone want one of these beta males as president. Doubt it.
That, kids, was smart power. And, if you enjoy politics, it was a beautiful thing to behold.
Government needs to be decried as a predator, not sucked up to and emulated.
The audience is prepped for rejection of the absolutely un-American facts, but I don’t think it will happen. One guy on the radio won’t do it. One side is in thrall to the irrational appeal of the other. Look at the UK – the Tories crashed and burned under sucessive “leaders”, all trying to parse the happy-speak statist nonsense of Blair.
Seth – “his lifestyle, and these days, his physique, invite harpooning”
An interesting turn of phrase, similar to things which have appeared in all the mass media re Limbaugh. I wonder how the media would portray such a phrase if Limbaugh applied it to Teddy Kennedy.
The Obama White House isn’t orchestrating an attack on Limbaugh because he’s ineffective and marginal.
When did Gibbs tell TIME to plant their op-ed ? If TIME isn’t in on the orchestration then I’m a monkey’s uncle. Someone carefully handed them a ladder,told them wait stage left and then instructed them to go out and help the rest of the MSM off that branch before it broke and dumped Carville,Begala, and Emanuel on top of Stephanopoulos.
Well said #2; however I would add that Rush is the consummate “free-market” guy, if the audience does not like what he has to say – they wont listen and will turn him off. Ironically, people of all persuasions seem to be aware of what he is saying. The President has better things to do than attack this man; ultimately it won’t work and most likely will come back to haunt him.
Reality break:
“But now that Limbaugh has become something else — the face of the Republican Party, by a White House that has played him brilliantly — he has been transformed into car-wreck-quality spectacle, at once scary and sad.
“Behold:
“The sweaty, swollen man in the black, half-buttoned shirt who ranted for nearly 90 minutes Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He reiterated his desire to see the president of his country fail. He misstated the Constitution’s intent while accusing President Obama of “bastardizing” the document. He made fun of one man’s service in Vietnam, to laughter.
“Rush Limbaugh.
“David Letterman compared him to an Eastern European gangster. But he looked more like a bouncer at a strip club who spent all his tips on one bad outfit. And for the Republican Party, Limbaugh has become very much a vice.
“Smarter Republicans know he is not good for them. As the conservative writer David Frum said recently, “If you’re a talk radio host and you have five million who listen and there are 50 million who hate you, you make a nice living. If you’re a Republican party, you’re marginalized.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By all means, push back. You only keep the story alive.
Sorry, link:
egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/fears-of-a-clown/
Listen to whomever you want. Support those who unequivocally defend the principles you believe in. Remember who your allies are and refuse advice from your enemies. Oppose those who want to destroy what you love with all the means at your disposal. Mistrust those who waver when things are on the line. There’s no other way–someone, I suppose, has to be hired to worry about “news cycles,” but if you’re not getting paid you’d have to be crazy to do so.
More people will listen to Rush as a result of this. If the battle is between a smaller number who listen to Rush and then go on to learn about conservative thought and politics on their own, and a larger number who demonize Rush without having a clue as to what he says and does, then our chances are good.
One more thing: the Democrats are the new fascist party. Forget about the old rules, forget about parties peacefully alternating in power. There is something new here: pay very close attention.
For decades, the Democrats’ principle argument has been ad hominem attack on Republican leaders, and over the last 8 years they have reached the point where their ONLY argument was attacking George Bush. The rationale for electing Obama was that he was not George Bush, and McCain somehow was. The rationale for Obama’s policies is that they are a “change” from George Bush’s policies (aka, “the failed policies of the past”). The Democrat’s response to any Republican argument has been: “Oh yeah? Well, George Bush! Nah, nah, nah!” (Watch Keith Olbermann, if you don’t believe me.)
Now, with Bush gone, they have no argument at all. They don’t know how to argue on the merits, so they need to cast around for a new bogeyman. Hence, Rush.
I keep hoping that the American people will notice that this is all they’ve got.
14
Nonsense. Of course, we are going to attack your leader. Just as you attack ours. That’s politics. And Rush Limbaugh seems to be closest thing you have to a leader.
By the way, Bush will not disappear as a target until all of his unlawful and unAmerican policies are fully exposed. Note that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers are only now going before Congress to testify about the US Attorney firing scandal. Bush’s power-grab memos will continue to trickle out. A truth commission on Bush’s abuses of power is growing more likely by the day. Until the wrongdoing of the Bush administration is cleansed by sunlight, America will not be able to heal and move on. And he will be top of mind so long as America remains in recession.
Politically, Bush will be a Republican liability for years. The party will have this monkey on its back until it disassociates itself from his administration and decries his executive abuses.
Number One’s Chicago political style is coming to the fore. His political henchmen are playing this game against Rush too soon. It will be old news by the time it counts — the 2010 election — and in any event it will be the hated Congressmen and women who will be running, not Number One. So I don’t think the Rush attack will prove successful.
More importantly, it is very unseemly for Number One to be attacking individuals in the media. Even the blind MSM can see that. Someday soon Number One will get angry when he makes one of those attacks. And soon Mr. Cool will be no more.
On, and on the “gee Number One’s hair is getting gray.” Lots of guesses from the MSM-adorers but the one obvious one — now that he is Number One, he’s stopped coloring his hair, is of course unmentioned.
The strangest thing about talk radio, Rush and the others preach individual responsibility, capitalism, patriotism and free markets. All fine and good, of course, but all the advertisements on the shows are aimed at those who owe back taxes, can’t keep up with their credit cards, and, oddly enough, those who need male enhancement products.
I presume the advertisers know their markets.
It is very encouraging that the Fascist Democratic party is now coming out explicitly and showing what they are. They are–by their own account–driven by the logic of revenge and the purge. The destruction of all traces of all things Bush–back to year 1. The Democrats are a fascist, criminal cult–I would ask anyone whether analyzing what they do in terms appropriate for a traditional political party will make better sense of their actions than analyzing them in the terms I propose. As #14 says, they will “do the opposite”–they will continue to follow the path that brought them into power, the scapegoating (with a persistence worthy of any tribal community in crisis) of Bush and all things “tainted” by Bush, the spoiling of anyone who presumably benefited under Bush (and all things Bush-like and Bushy), the distribution of the spoils to their followers (as nakedly as possible), and the self-immolation of the national community before the rest of world (whatever we are, we are un-Bushly, is the extent of Obama’s foreign policy–and don’t be fooled by the failure to dismantle all things put in place right away–give them time). The laws and Constitution will not matter in the slightest to them–they are above all that, they are rejoining the world, which has changed so we must change with it. Parochial things like our Constitution are not to be taken seriously. They will be very difficult to dislodge from power by traditional means.
As someone recently said–mark my words. See if I’m wrong about this, right now, 6 months from now, 2 years from now. They say all this themselves already.
What to do? As far as I can see, we will have to wait until they crash, and then be the ones who can pick up the pieces. Let’s hope there are enough, and we will be able to figure out how they fit together. In the meantime, just observe and record everything, go on the record, and resist wherever possible.
15 – I hope they keep it up. It will just add to the boomerrang. What goes around comes around. You realize the set up coming when the GOP gets their turn? They gave Clinton cronies a pass the first time, some who even stole US archive documents if you remember, because whatever you thought of his poltics, GWB, like his father, was a decent guy. After all it was just politics. But if the dems in congress are going to “criminalize” politics, then the GOP will win it back in 2010. I cannot believe our good fortune. They love Obama, but they hate COngress – who despite swamps and other’s comments, have lower ratings than everyone.
19
“They love Obama, but they hate COngress – who despite swamps and other’s comments,
have lower ratings than everyone.”– JEM
In fact, Congress’s overall approval is up by more than 10 points since Obama took office. Democrats in Congress have a 47% approval rating, according to Gallup. Republicans in Congress are 11 points behind, at 36%.
That’s not great, but well off its lows of the Bush administration. Running against an unpopular Congress is not the sure bet it was in 2006.
19
“But if the dems in congress are going to “criminalize” politics, then the GOP will win it back in 2010.”– JEM
It’s not so much criminalizing politics as it is criminalizing criminality. No one is above the law.
If Democrats overreach, you might be right. But the risk is low. We already know that much of what Bush did, in the early days of the War on Terror, was illegal. His own Attorney General said so. His backing off of his early assertions of power were concessions to the fact that they would not bear up under judicial scrutiny. He put eavesdropping back under the FISA court, for example. His detention policies were ruled illegal in several Supreme Court cases. And, of course, we know that he exaggerated intelligence to market the Iraq war. That was Doug Feith’s job description.
New secrets will emerge, and they will be damaging, just as his newly released memos, claiming that he could suspend the First and Fourth amendments, were.
Given what we already know, Democrats face little risk from pursuing the truth. If we sweep the crimes of our leaders under the rug, they are guaranteed to be repeated. This is a moral hazard we cannot bear.
Even if the Dem focus groups greenlight that an attack on Rush can pay dividends, what is the shelf life of such a campaign? Surely after a week or 2 it has to get stale and bore even the nutroots. So the question is, who will be the next Public Enemy Number One that the White House/DNC/MSM complex pick out to hector for a week? (If I were Iowahawk I’d go underground now!)
Playing With Fire…
Dick Meyer warns of the danger of scapegoating today: Wall Street Blame Game: Tag, You’re It “This is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president,” Jim Cramer, one of the great cheerleaders of the early 21st century bull……
I assume you guys on the other side will suddenly be fine with keeping Guantanamo open awaiting Bush and Chaney’s arrival. Well, I can’t wait for the first Obama-supported law to be declared unconstitutional (EFCA is a good bet). Then, next time we get in charge, it’s off to the gulag with them for “shredding the Constitution”! P.S. to Democrats: Since you probably can’t tell, and unlike yourselves, I’m joking.
Oh, BTW, regarding the U.S. Attorney “scandal,” how many U.S. Attorneys do you think Obama will be replacing for political reasons? [Hint... All of them.]
This is a losing PR strategy for the Dems. The more they try to publicly attack Rush Limbaugh as the “leader” of the Republican party, the more Limbaugh will have his rebuttals aired–also publicly. That’s a fight the greenhorns in the Obama Administration cant win. Like him or not, Limbaugh is good at what he does, and he’s absolutely corect about the incompetence of the present administration.
Limbaugh may be disliked by a large segment of the population, but that’s largely because his media crafted caricature is more familiar to the public than the man himself. The Establishment Media loathe him, but they wont be able to resist playing up this story. When one media outlet airs a story like this, all the other ones follow along to avoid being scooped. Besides, they hate him too much to restrain themselves.
This isn’t a boring public tiff between Rosie O’Donnell’ and Donald Trump. It’s a tiff between the Boy Blunder and a man who earns his living skewering Democrats and their left-wing policies–A very affluent living. The harder the Administration pushes their tawdry attack, the harder the much more skilled and media savvy Limbaugh will push back. The sneering Obama will come across as petty, thin-skinned and panicky, while Limbaugh will calmly make his case to a segment of the public he doesn’t ordinarily reach. Considering how many lies the President is prone to tell, this could turn out very badly for him.
This PR strategy by the Administration will expose Obama more than it will help him.
I don’t ordinarily reply to posts but I liked this and wanted you to know it.