The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama

[웃 910]

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama

A foreign policy of penance has won America no friends.

By FOUAD AJAMI</h3>Wall Street Journal

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Martin Kozlowski Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.

Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.

Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.

Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.

He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."

Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.

The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.

The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2007).

Edited November 30, 2009 by Confucian

[endoftheroad 1]

Wall Street Journal Obama smack? Again? WSJ is discredited by its allegiance with right wing wackos like birthers, tenthers, etc. Might as well quote Faux News........ oh yeah it is the same thing.

These people think that if they can scream loud enough they can affect elections. Worked real well for you all in 2006 and 2008 huh? lmao Keep it coming though, it is good for laughs and more democratic gains in 2010!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

When did Arabs actually APPLAUD 0bama--I haven't yet heard of "stopping" something which never was.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Kiss the Arab world's collective a$$ and they still hate the USA? I'm shocked.

[scandal 951]

He's not particularly popular in Israel either, particularly with the right-wing pro-settlement crowd who fear and resent the Obama Administration's stance on settlement expansion.

For anyone who would like to see some progress towards a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we can take heart in the fact that he hasn't won many friends in either camp. A compromise solution by definition means everybody has to give up some long-cherished positions, making it unpopular. If this was all about popularity I'd agree he's going about it the wrong way. It's not about popularity.

Whether the new Obama policy will in fact breathe new life into the process, we can only wait and see. In that part of the world facts on the ground typically speak louder than words. For example a release of Gilad Shalit may usher in a new era. Or it may not.

[DEDixon 39]

at least with bush, you knew exactly where he stood. with obama, who can really tell.

gotta say, obama loves to give... definitely a giver (aka spender) .... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one. sorry, but being president means some just might not like you. not being liked was why he delayed his afghan decision - it brought great pain to him thinking his decision would create less friends. when playing poker, he probably folds with the better hand.

unfortunately for obama, he is jimmy carter.

[Danno 1,228]

Wall Street Journal Obama smack? Again? WSJ is discredited by its allegiance with right wing wackos like birthers, tenthers, etc. Might as well quote Faux News........ oh yeah it is the same thing.

These people think that if they can scream loud enough they can affect elections. Worked real well for you all in 2006 and 2008 huh? lmao Keep it coming though, it is good for laughs and more democratic gains in 2010!

The only problem with claiming everyone who critiques Obama in a less than sweet light.. as a Right-wing Wacko is: you inevitably loose more and more credibility.

....Just exactly who are the "Moderate" rightwing agencies?

[slim 1,533]

.... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one.

Sounds like a good democrat to me!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

He's not particularly popular in Israel either, particularly with the right-wing pro-settlement crowd who fear and resent the Obama Administration's stance on settlement expansion.

For anyone who would like to see some progress towards a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we can take heart in the fact that he hasn't won many friends in either camp. A compromise solution by definition means everybody has to give up some long-cherished positions, making it unpopular. If this was all about popularity I'd agree he's going about it the wrong way. It's not about popularity.

Whether the new Obama policy will in fact breathe new life into the process, we can only wait and see. In that part of the world facts on the ground typically speak louder than words. For example a release of Gilad Shalit may usher in a new era. Or it may not.

0bama seems to have emulated Elisabeth II's 1960 diplomacy. That year, she made visits to Pindi where she lavished much about democracy (Pakistan was under military rule, and would stay that way for another 11 years solid, followed by a six-year break--hello) and then Delhi where she lavished much on how "efficiently" Pakistan was run (hello--Mussolini's rule of Italy, like Pakistan of 1960 a tyranny/dictatorship, was also quite "efficient"); description of it by her press-officer afterwards was "well, she actually managed to be neutral--though the wrong way, due to angering both nations".

at least with bush, you knew exactly where he stood. with obama, who can really tell.

gotta say, obama loves to give... definitely a giver (aka spender) .... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one. sorry, but being president means some just might not like you. not being liked was why he delayed his afghan decision - it brought great pain to him thinking his decision would create less friends. when playing poker, he probably folds with the better hand.

unfortunately for obama, he is jimmy carter.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

.... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one.

Sounds like a good democrat to me!

I wish you folks could just make up your mind. Is he pleasing everyone? Then why all the hate out there against him? Is he ruining the country or is he not really doing anything? Which is it? Don't be puzzies, take a fcuking stand already.

[DEDixon 39]

.... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one.

Sounds like a good democrat to me!

I wish you folks could just make up your mind. Is he pleasing everyone? Then why all the hate out there against him? Is he ruining the country or is he not really doing anything? Which is it? Don't be puzzies, take a fcuking stand already.

he can't do anything about those that don't like him however he acts in such a way that he is afraid of offending those that are on the fence (this includes ppl inside and outside america). he is like the step parent that buys the love of his step child (big spender) and the step parent that is afraid to take a stand on anything so the child has no reason to dislike. obama = jimimy carter

puzzies? hmmm, all i have to say about that is that "name calling is the last resort of limited intelligence."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

.... just trying to make everyone happy and to offend no one.

Sounds like a good democrat to me!

I wish you folks could just make up your mind. Is he pleasing everyone? Then why all the hate out there against him? Is he ruining the country or is he not really doing anything? Which is it? Don't be puzzies, take a fcuking stand already.

he can't do anything about those that don't like him however he acts in such a way that he is afraid of offending those that are on the fence (this includes ppl inside and outside america). he is like the step parent that buys the love of his step child (big spender) and the step parent that is afraid to take a stand on anything so the child has no reason to dislike. obama = jimimy carter

puzzies? hmmm, all i have to say about that is that "name calling is the last resort of limited intelligence."

Try the ladder to get off yours.

[alienlovechild 75]

I wish you folks could just make up your mind. Is he pleasing everyone? Then why all the hate out there against him? Is he ruining the country or is he not really doing anything? Which is it? Don't be puzzies, take a fcuking stand already.

Hate? Why is any criticism of Obama considered hate?

Ok, Dog, point out the hate on this thread since you've thrown down the gauntlet, again.

I'd argue Obama has been a very active president on manipulating government spending with no real effect on the economy- so he's ruining the country while nothing is happening.

You're worried about posters not taking a stand but go silent about Obama's indecision on Afghanistan- there's your cop out. Obama's foreign policy is like Bush's despite all his big talk with the except of him finally attaching his testicles to make a speech on Afghanistan tonight.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wish you folks could just make up your mind. Is he pleasing everyone? Then why all the hate out there against him? Is he ruining the country or is he not really doing anything? Which is it? Don't be puzzies, take a fcuking stand already.

Hate? Why is any criticism of Obama considered hate?

Ok, Dog, point out the hate on this thread since you've thrown down the gauntlet, again.

I'd argue Obama has been a very active president on manipulating government spending with no real effect on the economy- so he's ruining the country while nothing is happening.

You're worried about posters not taking a stand but go silent about Obama's indecision on Afghanistan- there's your cop out. Obama's foreign policy is like Bush's despite all his big talk with the except of him finally attaching his testicles to make a speech on Afghanistan tonight.

Criticism is perfectly fine and often warranted. Hate is when people start humping over non-issues or blame a guy for not having changed the world in 10 months time. The RWN love to engage in the latter. That's not criticism because it lacks substance and isn't particularly productive.

No effect on the economy? We still have an economy. How's that for an effect? The broad view among economists is that w/o the action taken by Bush towards the end of his term and the action taken by Obama since, there wouldn't be much of an economy left. Not here and not elsewhere. Now, you may choose to have different opinion on that but that does not mean that there hasn't been a very positive effect on the economic situation that is owed to the economic policies this administration is pursuing. Most of it has yet to bear fruit, however, but then, Rome wasn't exactly built in a day either.

As for the supposed indecision on Afghanistan, I'd argue that a deliberate approach and periodic strategic review of our war over there from the start may actually have seen us out of there some time ago. The shoot from the hip approach taken by the previous administration certainly hasn't been successful. Why engage in more of it? Why not take a different approach to reach a better outcome?

Personally, I'd rather we get out of that hellhole and leave it to the Afghans to do with as they please. I'm not happy with the decision Obama reached to send more troops over there. I think it's useless. But that doesn't lead me to sit there and claim that I know better what is and isn't the right move at this point. It certainly doesn't lead me to sit there and say that the President isn't decisive. He just decides with his head rather than his gut.

[웃 910]

Ubama, Hussein still has a lot of time remaining in his presidency.