Grade Obama’s Cairo Speech

Today’s speech by an American president in an Arab capital was different from all previous ones in one particular fashion. To alter Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum, the man is the message. Many have mocked Barack Obama’s considerable self-regard, but his private history–much documented and bizarrely twisted, if not debated, during the campaign–clearly embodies the opportunity for Arab leaders and citizens to listen. Perhaps not to trust. Perhaps not to act. But, surely, to listen. That, for me, might constitute the “new beginning.”

The forthright, scrupulous, and candid presentation of his argument was remarkably fresh. That, more than anything else, defines the president’s evolving moral authority, namely, the equitable discussion of reality. As in the Philadelphia race speech and the Notre Dame commencement speech, Obama makes a full accounting of grievances from many sides and shows a sensitivity to the many interpretations of the roots of those grievances. He acknowledges what few have in the past, that what is said in private is seldom expressed in public. That holds true in backyards in Haifa, in Gaza, and in Riyadh as much as it does in the backyards in Birmingham, Charlestown, or the four neighborhood quadrants of Washington, DC. Perhaps until now.

Whether it’ll lead to less war or even more peace in the Middle East remains to be seen, but speaking truth from power as well as to power…that’s leadership. In a region in which intransigent issue after intransigent issue has long been stalemated and mired, that leadership coupled with the president’s unique private history could create a climate for renewed dialogue at least. At least, perhaps, that. And if the president has engendered an openness to listen in the Middle East, that could prove the great breakthrough of today’s speech.

And yet in the Middle East, the “and yets” pile up.

Not for doubting the president’s oratorical capacity, however, nor for expecting that his own mind and frames of argumentation wouldn’t have a large imprint over the speech–it’s been reported that he wrote much of it–my anticipation for the speech was pessimistic. I feared he’d essentially say what every American president in recent memory has said, and that’s exactly what he did: that the U.S. is not embattled with Islam, that America respects Islam, that only a small band of extremists impede peace, that democracy must be earned and not forced, that Israel must exist, and that Palestinians must be freed from occupation. He said all of this–so did President Bush, as well as Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, and so on as far back as anyone can recall.

As I’ve been writing here recently, this is not surprising given how the Middle East community essentially sees one American foreign policy no matter who is president and from either party. That foreign view is not surprising because most of the time that’s actually the case. Today’s speech changes little in that respect and is little different. But President Obama might himself be the catalyst for new respect and an actual difference.

This post originally appeared on Politico

Tortured

 

Cesar Conda

Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor

 

Bush’s polices made us safe

In her response to yesterday’s Arena question about the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies, Maria Cardona  asserted that “these misguided and dreadful policies have not made us safer…” and they have only provided “fodder” to our enemies. On 9/11, our enemies killed almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans before “these misguided and dreadful policies” were ever put into place. Our enemies in Al-Qaeda don’t need additional “fodder” or motivation; their hatred for America and the freedoms America stands for is absolute.

Interestingly, when lawmakers were briefed about these tougher interrogation policies, there was bipartisan approval and encouragement for them. Apparently, the Democrats who were briefed on these interrogation policies did not view them as “misguided and dreadful.”

Cardona’s assertion that the intelligence infrastructure created after 9/11 has “not made us safer” doesn’t square with the fact that there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil. Weakening that infrastructure will make America more vulnerable. 

Finally, there is another line from “conservative hero” Ronald Reagan that we should borrow and use to guide us in today’s War on Terror: “We must have the will to meet the challenges of an adversary who is constantly testing our resolve to defend our vital national interests.”

 

• David Biespiel

  Poet and writer, Attic Writer’s Workshop

   

  More Americans have died since 9/11 than on 9/11

  Cesar, you’re right to point out the culpability that Congressional Democrats share in approving the Bush administration’s dubious interrogation policies. These Democrats may not have viewed the interrogation policies, including torture, as “misguided and dreadful,” to use Marina Cordona’s words from the other day on the Arena, but that does not mean that the Democrats’ approval wasn’t itself misguided and dreadful. 

  Both the Bush administration and its supporters overt or tacit approval of torture as an interrogation method was misguided and dreadful. 

  Be that as it may, if supporters of President Bush’s post-9/11 polices can assert that his administration made us safer, then supporters must also affirm the corollary: President Bush’s pre-9/11 policies made us unsafe. If the Bush administration is responsible for the success that’s claimed after 9/11, then it’s responsible for the failure before on 9/10 and prior. While I believe that is the case–that culpability, I do not think it is absolutely so; except for a few spectacular occasions, it’s not like the American homeland has been under attack all that much from 1812 to 2001 anyway.

  Conservatives and Republicans assert that, after 9/11, President Bush’s interrogation policies and actions generally have made us safer because, as you write, “there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil.” I’m disappointed that you make this argument because, for one thing, it’s just the mother of all debate stoppers, to borrow an expression. Why? Because no one can prove a negative. 

  Just because there’s been no attack on American soil, doesn’t confirm that we’re more safe. As you say, terrorists don’t need “fodder.” Meanwhile, Americans have not actually been safer. The 4,924 American service men and women who have been casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were not safer. (In the spirit of disclosure, I was a supporter of Operation Enduring Freedom and the creation of the Homeland Security Department; I opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom; and as I have written on the Arena and elsewhere I am willing to admit that President Bush was right to conquer Iraq when I see an Iraqi and Iranian embassy in Jerusalem and an Israeli embassy in Baghdad and Tehran.) As far as the issue of American safety is concerned, more Americans have died since 9/11 than died on 9/11.

  Finally, to assert that Americans are safer because of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies is to assert that the rule of law is less important than American safety. That’s a debate that must be had again and again, now and in the future, about the relationship between the importance of American security and the importance of abiding by American laws. It is Machiavellian to assert that torture is justifiable because it prevents further attacks against Americans or because “there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil.” 

  I should like to add something to that fine quote by President Reagan you supplied this morning. Thank you, Cesar, for posting it; I hadn’t read it before. “We must have the will to meet the challenges of an adversary who is constantly testing our resolve to defend our national interests” and we must have the resolve to make sure that those challenges do not cause us to abandon our values about the relationship between freedom and the rule of law.

  from Politico

  Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

  follow david on twitter

   

A Cautionary Tale: LBJ, Guns, & Butter

“How Not to End Another President’s War (L.B.J. Edition)” by Robert Dallek

from The New York Times

follow david on twitter