Proof in the Punch
The Arabiya interview had some troubling aspects, an undercurrent of hardness running through the feel-good rhetoric, the mailed fist beneath the velvet glove — Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, in “The Mailed Fist and the Velvet Glove.”
Raimondo’s piece today puts words to those wary (weary?) feelings I experienced watching what is being hailed as Obama’s break-through interview with Al-Arabiya television (the original investors at the network’s 2003 debut hail from those freedom loving oil-rich Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It would have been more impressive if Obama had reached out to Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya’s rival and widely considered the first choice of “the Arab street,” but that’s another story.)
There is nothing wrong strategically with having a mailed fist under the velvet glove, but it’s helpful to know who might be on the receiving end. As Raimondo and others not undone by the vapors point out, Obama’s Muslim outreach came within days of the hellfire strikes that wiped out alleged insurgents and civilians in two Pakistani villages Friday. Just like Bush never left.
When Juan Cole — a liberal, self-described card-carrying Democratic professor of Middle East studies – had the temerity to speak out about the strikes he found out fast that even liberals guzzling the newer, sweeter Kool-Aid get Hawaiian Punchy. 
When he questioned in a thorough, altogether sober Salon.com article whether Pakistan might turn into “Obama’s Vietnam,” liberal talker Taylor Marsh accused him of hyperbole and of giving comfort to the enemy (Sean Hannity). As many on these and other conservative pages have already found out the hard way, the trip off the reservation can be a cruel and lonely journey. One of the few comforts is knowing that once Democrats start demanding the goose step they put their own demise into motion. Just ask the ghosts of Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich, who’s ego is still haunting but hardly impacting anything in Washington these days.
Obama made this point in his interview : his administration’s actions will speak louder than his words. And he spared everyone the gratuitous chant of freedom, liberty and democracy so abused by the former administration and wielded like a battleax by Madame Karen Hughes on her legendary listening tour through the Muslim World. Yes, actions are everything, and the sound of missiles and the cries of orphaned children will pierce through any message of R-E-S-P-E-C-T no matter how charming the messenger. It would seem that Obama is on the verge of telling us something important — how he is going to approach the quagmire that Afghanistan has become under the Bush Doctrine (Bush holdover Sec Def Gates gave some interesting hints yesterday) and whether he is really willing to change the American relationship with the Muslim world through policy and diplomacy and not just sunshiney talk. So far, his unwillingness to question possible warcrimes and the suffering in Gaza has not been lost on Arab opinionmakers. But we are listening. The proof will be in the punch, mailed fist and all.
How “breakthrough” is the interview? Bush gave two or three interviews with the network while president.
It is my opinion, based on no facts whatsoever, that Obama-Gates know that Afghanistan is unwinnable in any conventional sense. They realize that the status quo is unsustainable even with more troops because the Europeans are about to pull the plug on their participation and Karzai’s gang is so corrupt that it will never be able to take control of the country. On the plus side they know that the drone strikes in Pakistan are killing many mid level al-Qaeda (and civilians). My intel buddies tell me that Usama and his close advisers have been near misses on several occasions. So Obama-Gates hope to hang on for a while and maybe get lucky and take out bin Laden. At that point it will be time to declare victory and leave.
Re the mailed fist metaphor, Obama has to be careful not to give the Republicans and also the Dem hawks any ammunition to use against him so he has to project national security tough and, for the same reason, one should not expect that he will actually be able to change anything in the near term. It will be interesting to see how George Mitchell responds to the Israeli moves to end the truce with Hamas even as he arrives in the ME, in effect showing Mitchell who is boss. Will he respond at all?
Also interesting to watch the internal Dem debate. Juan Cole, who knows virtually everything there is to know about the Middle East and Central Asia vs. Taylor Marsh? Taylor Marsh?
(lol at your graphic!)
Bob — I meant “breakthrough” in the sense that Obama chose a foreign outlet — Arab media — for his first White House interview. I believe that, in itself, was unprecedented.
Does he not realize that Iran and other nations like it are laughing at this. They hate Him as much as Bush or any other American.
I fail to see how taking out bin Laden accomplishes anything meaningful. The al Qaeda movement isn’t a hierarchical structure that can be eliminated by assassinating its figurehead. The Israelis have been wiping out PA, Hamas and Hezbollah leaders for years. What have they achieved beyond alienating themselves from most of the civilized world and radicalizing the opposition?
I doubt that those with enough influence in the Obama administration are willing to admit that Afghanistan (and now apparently Pakistan) is a lost cause and was never winnable in any traditional sense. So we will squander more resources, kill more civilians, and create more terrorists in the Middle East, while turning our country into a police state. It’ll be just great for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The American taxpayer, as always, will get the shaft.
Recreating Afghanistan in our own image was always a fantasy. Killing Bin Laden and his immediate circle is necessary for two reasons.
The American public needs the cathartic resolution of knowing that the enemy who struck us at home is dead. We owe it to the victims.
The Muslim world sees vengeance as part of the principle of justice. If we fail to pursue Bin Laden we admit his status as a righteous warrior.
The killing of civilians in the tribal areas is regrettable but inevitable given the use of guided weapons. The locals would have more respect for us if we used spies, assassins, or even proxies than the cowardly manner of the Israelis, hiding behind our technology. Of course we need to decide if the respect of Muslims is worth it.
The central kernel of our dilemma is that a clash of civilizations is in progress and Bin Laden is not so much a bad Muslim as an extreme one. So we can be dupes of the Israelis and go on a crusade. Or we can pretend that there is no clash and that we are all brothers. Or we can own our own Westerness and follow a policy of containment and where necessary, belligerence in the furtherance of limited attainable goals. I think the third option is necessary but in view of the decadence of our own culture and political class, it’s unlikely.
The absurdity of our current mentality is highlighted in todays news that a CIA Station Chief, and self proclaimed convert to Islam, is under investigation for date raping Muslim women.
If the analysis Leon Hadar rendered of Obama a few threads back is correct, and it certainly seems to make a lot of sense out of the confusing evidence to date, Obama probably doesn’t have any real well-formed “end vision” of what he wants in Afghanistan and Pakistan or how to get there. So in essence I wonder if he really meant to hint at any mailed fist underneath the velvet of his glove. Certainly vis a vis the arab/moslem world he very much seems to have been wanting to emphasize the velvet I think.
One has to say also that the Afghanistan and especially the Pakistan situations are very troubling. Like Thom Meehan says in a way we simply have to keep going after bin Laden. And to pull out of Afghanistan totally—beyond denying us a base to do that—also is problematic given the nation-building rationale we (foolishly) gave for staying in there in the first place.
I’d be happy pulling out of Afghanistan totally anyway I think saying that our beef was simply with it harboring al Queda and so long as it refrains from same its internal affairs are its internal affairs. And go after bin Laden from elsewhere once in awhile, if for no other reason than to try to honor our duty to avenge our dead.
But you have to admit that it has its downsides. Loss of that base to go against bin Laden, probable return of the Taliban and thus very possibly/probably al Queda too, loss of face for pulling out, loss of a base on the border with Iran when who-knows-what might happen there and in any event perhaps removing what the Iranians might see as a restraining factor….
If anything Obama is going to find himself under fire from his Left staying in Afghanistan and whacking at Obama in Pakistan once in awhile. Seems to me he might benefit from some understanding and defense from the rest of us with what seems his obvious extemporizing there now.
The man’s trying to feel his way forward through a very complex and dangerous situation. That strikes me as a better way forward than just the blind acting on simplistic cliche’s and dogmas that seems to have been what our last Administration considered thoughtful decision-making.
The United States must do two things to kill/capture Bin Laden:
1. Withdraw combat forces from Iraq. The occupation of Iraq is a recruiting tool for terrorists. Leaving Al-Qaeda without an excuse would greatly hamper with Al-Qaeda’s operations.
2. Cease the hostility between NATO and the Opium cartel in Afghanistan/Pakistan region. The cartel is loyal to whoever tolerates it, and when the US began persecuting it, the allegiance shifted toward the Taliban; however, if NATO ceases it drug war, the support for Al-Qaeda will dwindle.
This is what the US needs to do:
1. Complete the Bin Laden execution mission
2. Air lift all women and girls out of Taliban areas and leave the vile, rotten acid throwers to themselves.