President Obama gives interview to Al-Arabiya

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

President Obama showing a clear break from the W. Bush administration with his vision and his manner on how he will deal with the Muslim world and how it is to be received by the United States should be greeted on a positive note especially in retrospect of how the relationship has been in the last 8 years. As Obama has noted previously, he will address the Muslim world from a Muslim nation which will help further redefine the relationship the U.S. wants to have with Muslims.

…
The Following is a full transcript of interview with President Obama:

Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you’ve been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the
United States starts by dictating – in the past on some of these issues --and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.

And it’s going to be difficult, it’s going to take time. I don’t want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States – working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region – I’m absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You’ve been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues – like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region – you’ve been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques – at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side – is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia –

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage –

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: – to put forward something that is as significant as that.
I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many
Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state – and you know the contours of it – within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state – I’m not going to put a time frame on it – that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that’s why we’ve got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that’s what’s going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great.
How concerned are you – because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America – in some parts, I don’t want to exaggerate – there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It’s become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts – like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It’s only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last – since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and – and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and – because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and
Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know – a chorus –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they’ve been using against me before I even took office –

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: – what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There’s no actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you’ve built, not what you’ve destroyed. And what they’ve been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to
communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, 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. Andthat I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I’m not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what’s on a television station in the Arab world – but I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I’m speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.

We’re going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you’re going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you’ve already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we’re going to do so on our terms, and we’re going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people – Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations – whether Muslim or any other faith in the past – that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in
distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda – that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it – and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s up to the team –

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past – none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just –

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let’s – we’re past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/27/65087.html

2

The Mailed Fist and the Velvet Glove- by Justin Raimondo

President Obama’s interview with al-Arabiya television is remarkable in several ways, but what strikes me the most is that it coincided with the first air strikes on Pakistan under his administration: 22 people were killed, including between four and seven Taliban/al-Qaeda bad guys.
In the Arabiya interview, Obama was at his charming best, and the easily charmed were bowled over. Andrew Sullivan, for example, fairly swooned, and announced it’s “about the same thing as inviting Rick Warren or supping with George Will: it’s about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.”
What would you say if the police came into your neighborhood to confront reported criminals, killed a few – and also managed to knock off 18 or so bystanders? Would you say this shows the police respect the neighborhood?
All the sweet talk won’t drown out the protests of the elected president of Afghanistan, who wants us to stop bombing his people too. Yet, truth be told, Obama’s honeyed words are alluring:
“My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”
“Al-Arabiya: The largest one.”
“Obama: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.”
Even as he was speaking, American drones were snuffing out lives and his generals were planning a wider war. That seems to be the signature Obama style: cool, calm, and collected as he talks out of one side of his mouth, while he’s giving the order to kill out of the other. If that doesn’t scare you, then you’ve probably had a little too much of that sweet-tasting Obama-brand Kool-Aid.
Yes, these issues are all “interrelated,” as the current Washington buzzword would have it, albeit not in the way Obama imagines. Many Muslims worldwide watched his interview on the same day – perhaps in the same newscast – they heard of the Pakistani air strike. It’s a short walk, in this instance, from cognitive dissonance to hypocrisy.
The Arabiya interview had some troubling aspects, an undercurrent of hardness running through the feel-good rhetoric, the mailed fist beneath the velvet glove:
“Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”
“Paramount,” according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, means “superior to all others.” This is what President Obama is telling the peoples of the region: Israel comes first, over and above the Palestinians, the security interests of Israel’s neighbors, and maybe even above any moral concerns one might have. (You’ll note he didn’t condemn Israel’s brutality in Gaza, even though the interviewer gave him ample scope to do so.)
But there’s a message in there for us Americans, too: Israel’s alleged security also trumps U.S. interests in the region, an odd situation that, as Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt pointed out in their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has distorted and in many ways poisoned our relations with the Arab world.
Those who criticize our new president on these grounds are bound to be attacked by the party-liners, as Professor Juan Cole has been – if you can take this empty razzing seriously – by the talk-radio lefty Taylor Marsh. Cole’s answer to her is priceless:
"The notion that we should not say something critical of the policy of a Democratic president because it might give aid and comfort to the right-wing enemy is completely unacceptable. It is a form of regimentation, and equivalent to making dissent a sort of treason. We had enough of that the last eight years (it used to be from different quarters that I was accused of traitorously succoring the enemy).
“I am an analyst, and a truth-teller. I don’t work for anyone except, in a vague way, the people of Michigan, who took it into their heads to hire me to tell them about the Middle East, and their charge to me is to call it as I see it. I serve no interest. I am a member of the Democratic Party, but I don’t accept everything in the party platform, and I am not so partisan that I cannot admire politicians and principles of other parties, whether the Greens or (some) Republicans. I didn’t agree to join the Communist Party, such that no dissent is allowed lest it benefit the reactionaries and revanchists.”
Amen, brother.
The occasion for the Obama-ite assault on the respected Professor Cole was “Obama’s War,” a Salon.com piece that questioned the president’s announced plan to launch a major escalation of the Afghan war by extending it into Pakistan. As Obama begins to implement this vastly ambitious military campaign, a mindless “you’re giving aid and comfort to the ‘enemy’” mindset will increasingly dominate the pro-Obama airwaves – yet on the Internet it’s a different story, and this is the real playing field on which the future of American politics is being contested.
Don’t let the Iraq “drawdown” – if and when it occurs – fool you. Those troops, for the most part, will be transferred to Afghanistan and environs. Bring the troops home? Not a chance.
Aside from signing on to the “war on terrorism” concept, a generational conflict comparable to the Hundred Years War or both World Wars, Obama has also inherited the Bush doctrine, the central canon of which is military preemption of potential threats. He is now acting on that principle: that’s what the Pakistan air strikes and the Afghan “surge” are all about.
What rationale is there now for continued U.S. military operations in Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden and his crew have long since vanished into obscurity, and there is no real evidence he’s hiding in the wilds of Waziristan, as is constantly inferred. U.S. military operations in Pakistan are a blatant violation of international law, and the potential blowback is frightening to think about. If we destabilize the government of Pakistan, and radical Islamists take possession of the country’s nuclear weapons – I don’t even want to think about it. Yet this is a very real danger.
If we are really in for an extended military occupation of Afghanistan, and even parts of Pakistan, let’s hear it from the chief: how long, and at what cost? I’m very much afraid, however, that, like a president he increasingly resembles, he’s apt to say we must pay any price, bear any burden. How many will follow him into that abyss?
~ Justin Raimondo

3

While this writer might like to pretend al Qaeda is dead and gone ("Osama bin Laden and his crew have long since vanished into obscurity") he is gravely mistaken. Which he seems to acknowledge in the very next sentence as he warns that the U.S. could destabilize Pakistan, and radical Islamists could take control of the country...huh? In the sentence just prior the writer stated* "*Osama bin Laden and his crew had vanished", that being the case how would radical Islamists ("Bin Ladens crew") take over Pakistan?

The writer does in fact know that 'Osama bin Laden and his crew' have not simply vanished but he is wrong when he says that it is the U.S. who will destabilize the government of Pakistan, it is in fact bin Laden and 'his crew', the radical Islamists who want to destabilize the nation. The writer should take note of the intentional bombings and the killings that radical Islamists have perpetrated upon the people of Pakistan before he lays blame on the U.S.

The writer is concerned about military engagement in Afghanistan and it's cost, how quickly he forgets the cost at doing nothing and letting radicals run a mok.

Charpai
4

The U.S. will fail in Afghanistan and radicals will run amok no matter unless you kill every Afghan man, woman and child.

5

How insulting your comments are to the people of Afghanistan. Military operations are only a fraction within the equation that needs to be used in stablizing Afghanistan.

6

I think Afghans being killed by cowardly bloodthirsty American terrorists, hiding safely in their ships and jets, is a lot more insulting. But then again, I am a human being.

Afghanistan will NEVER be stabilized by foreign forces. The Soviets failed, the Brits failed and now it's America's turn. Pakistan will go down with it, with far more devastating consequences. There will be continous war and Obama will fail there.

7

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam: A Muslim’s Memo to Obama

Words Cannot Camouflage Cluster Bombs

A fair number of liberals swooning over President Barack Obama’s recent speechmaking are also impressed by his rhetorical gestures and overtures to Arabs and Muslims, first articulated during his inaugural address and reiterated on a major Arabic-language news channel.
The sharp divergence in tone and tenor from Bush’s rhetoric is certainly welcome after eight years of hubris and arrogance.
Quoting from a New York Times article today:
“In the interview, which was taped on Monday night and broadcast throughout the Muslim world on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said it was his job ‘to communicate to the Muslim world that the Americans are not your enemy.’
He added that ‘we sometimes make mistakes,’ but said that America was not born as a colonial power and that he hoped for a restoration of ‘the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.’”
But while the best orators can massage reality through rhetoric, rhetoric cannot reshape reality when there is a vast, yawning chasm between mellifluous words and murderous weapons.
Obama’s silence—and, ultimately, lame endorsement—of Israel’s murder of hundreds of civilians is an example of such a chasm. It is one that will not easily exit the collective memory of the Muslim world by dint of a few pretty pronouncements.
Was it a “mistake” to stand by Israel as it ruthlessly and deliberately destroyed and deracinated Palestinian neighborhoods in a ghastly display of cheerful brutality? Obama certainly didn’t think so, as he told State Department employees. He obligatorily invoked the usual AIPAC-induced buzzwords that exude a perverse “blame the victim” vibe, championing Israel’s “right to defend itself” as it left mountains of corpses in the wake of its massive attack of hospitals, depots, journalists, and human rights infrastructure. He even spared a moment to demand that Hamas recognize Israel’s legitimacy as it illegitimately rampaged through Gaza, and reminded us all of Israel’s right to exist.
But was Israel’s “right to exist” ever threatened by unguided rockets that failed to kill more than three or four civilians while Israel itself was swiftly slaughtering five or six hundred innocents? Should Obama have not rather concerned himself with the “right to exist” of a people–-a stateless, homeless, people–-who were being flattened inside their refugee camps as he was lecturing?
Obama’s decision to emphasize the absurd instead of the obvious was very revealing. It was a message that Muslim life is expendable. It was a message that Muslims can be killed en masse. And it was a message the Muslim world heard loudly.
If one hundred Palestinian corpses are placed next to one Israeli corpse, the “new” White House informed Muslims through Obama’s messaging, its scales of sympathy will still not tip in their favor. They will be addressed tersely only to demand that they recognize their oppressor’s right to exist.
This is akin to yelling into the ear of a rape victim during an assault that she must recognize the rights of her rapist. It is an insult with few parallels–but many echoes.
Can a relationship based on “respect and partnership” be established in this context? Obama silently acceded to—and then effectively endorsed—wanton violence in which more than half the victims were civilians, extended his sympathy first and foremost to the victimizers, and only secondarily, half-heartedly, grudgingly, to the victims.
Obama’s fundamental failure to confront Israel’s utter disregard for Muslim life is a red line that cannot be elided by fine speechmaking. Any “good faith” effort he attempts in the Islamic sphere will melt like hot wax under the burning impact of his failure to confront the Palestinian question honestly.
This was made painfully clear when Obama dispatched George Mitchell to the Middle East to cope with the aftermath of the Gaza invasion and make some initial steps toward something resembling peace.
On its face, the move was reasonable: Mitchell is a serious and hardened diplomat. The only problem with this political maneuver is that Israel, euphoric from its latest round of killing, is about to empower hard-right politicians who view any peace process with hatred and contempt. Even though the war was launched by what passes for the “center-left” in Israel—Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni—this sector will not be the main beneficiary of its own blood-soaked policies.
Instead, the fascist politician Avigdor Liberman, who pines for the ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Arabs, and the Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly opposes any peace moves, are expected to reap the most fruit in the upcoming elections. The very idea that such men have the slightest interest in achieving peace is a pungent mixture of the perverse and the peculiar.
The ascendance of Israel’s right in a war launched by its left should serve as a cautionary reminder that, sometimes, an action can have unforeseen consequences. The same can be said of inaction: it cannot always be covered up in fine phrases or even in well-meaning actions that come too little, too late. Obama is going to have to do more than utter pretty words and dutifully dispatch diplomats if he genuinely expects the United States to achieve cordial relations with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.
It is a macabre fact that while Obama now speaks warm words about the prospects of future relations with Muslims, the Israelis viewed his very ascension as a perfect opportunity to go “berserk” (as the operation was approvingly described in Israel) against Muslims-–with the implicit understanding that the madness will, of course, pause in time for the inaugural ceremony, and be followed by zero repercussions for the aggressors.
No “respect or partnership” with Muslims can be based upon this kind of grotesque, quasi-coordinated humiliation.
If Obama is at all serious about his overture, he will have to confront old shibboleths and entrenched interests—including the pro-Israeli lobby. Of course, that is no easy task, and it is tempting to ignore for two reasons.
First, no other vested interest surpasses in obscenity or audacity this largely unchallenged outfit. Its attempts to portray an occupying power as the victim of the very people it has occupied, dispossessed, and corralled into the world’s largest concentration camp is strange. That this reverse-reality trick is performed by invoking a persecution from another time and place is even stranger–-a feat of emotional extortion without equal.
Indeed, as Israeli shells were splattering Palestinian skulls on the walls of destroyed homes, one indignant American Jewish writer opined in a British newspaper that the pressing problem of the hour was an upsurge of “the purest antisemitism since the Nazi era.”
Second, the Muslim world is, unlike Israel and its American lobbying arm, weak. In fact, it is in shameful disarray. The collective failure of the Arabs and the Muslims to do more than posture, prattle, and piss in the wind during the demolition of Gaza will be recorded-–and has already been recorded in the minds of many of its followers–as one of the lowest points in the 1,400-year history of Muslim civilization.
Nonetheless, there are sound geo-strategic reasons for America to make good with a quarter of humanity. If Obama is committed to achieving that end, he should know that Muslims are neither stupid nor naive: cooing while killing will work no better than the last eight years of cackling while killing.
If President Obama wishes to repair relations with the Muslim world and help isolate Islamic extremists, he is going to have to reign in extremists who would already be isolated but for America’s enabling of them. Israel in “berserk” mode tops that list.

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam blogs about America and Islam at Crossing the Crescent and writes about American Muslim identity for WireTap magazine. He works as a communications coordinator for an anti-domestic violence agency in NYC and can be reached at: junaidalam1 AT gmail.com.

8

No, it will be stabilized by Afghans and the U.S. along with an international coalition (a true coalition, not a Bush one) will help that become a reality. This is not an option, this is mandatory. Afghanistan will not be allowed to become a safe haven for terrorists, we've already done that and know what the consequences for allowing it.

As far as Israel is concerned President Obama dispatch a envoy to the region in his 1st week in office. One of his first calls was to President Abbas.

9

It will be stabilized in fantasy only, never in reality.

[QUOTE]
Afghanistan will not be allowed to become a safe haven for terrorists, we've already done that and know what the consequences for allowing it.
[/QUOTE]

"Terrorists" in Afghanistan today are 3 years old. They will grow up and attack the US and Pakistan.

10

Time will tell.

I'm sure similar things were said about the Japanese and Germans during the 1940's. Now they are some of the United States greatest allies.

11

Re: President Obama gives interview to Al-Arabiya

Videos are available in GS Video section, for those who wanna watch the interview

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/video-gallery/309843-president-obama-interview-al-arabiya.html

12

Germans and Japanese accepted their defeat. The Afghans have not and they never will.

There were also no bombs falling on little German and Japanese kids and wedding parties either after their defeat and subsequent occupation. There was also no insurgency like there is in Afghanistan today which is requiring a boost in US troops to continue this war militarily. (You're right that military cannot be the only option, but in Afghanistan, it is). Your analogy is stupid.

13

Looks like you are rooting for the terrorists and the talib murderers. Why do you hate freedom that Islam gives us and love compulsion that Islam warns against?

As for history, do you know how many German and Japanese children, woman and men were killed to bring about their defeat?

14

No one is wanting to defeat the Afghans. But the Taliban Nazis who do not represent the Afghans need to be wiped from the face of the Earth. You are welcome to join them.

Maybe because both Germany and Japan didn't have insurgencies after they were defeated.

Timepass - November 2012
15

People who f@rt about Afghan history with examples like British and Russian defeats completely, utterly, and miserably fail to realize the fundamental fact.

Afghans defeated and destroyed their own military and their own police, and then they were run over by every Tom, Dickov, Gunter, and Smith.

The same Afghan self-immolation, suicidal behavior is now being copied in Pakistan too. And the result will be that every warlord will run from Afghanistan and start pillaging Pakistan.

Thus Afghanistan may get saved due to the sacrifices of pro-development Afghans and hundreds of foreign troops,

BUT

Pakistan will be turned into Afghanistan thanks to the thinkers and Islamists like some poster in this thread.

p.s. And yes German and Japanese examples may not be applicable here. At least they at some stage realized their error and saved their army and police. Perhaps Afghan warlords are not civilized enough to be even considered for comparison with Post-WWII leadership of Germany and Japan.

16

Wajahat Ali: Obama’s Al-Arabiya Interview

In his historic interview with the Al-Arabiya TV channel, President Obama’s inclusive and respectful rhetoric towards Muslims attempted an elegant coup de grace to the divisive, insecure and arrogant bravado of the Bush administration. For many Muslims worldwide, however, the sincerity of such honey-coated words will only be legitimized by a responsible and balanced foreign policy that is no longer rooted in selfishness and historical amnesia.
Obama optimistically told the “Muslim world” – if even such a nebulous entity exists - that his “job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people …My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”
Like a skillful and eloquent Cool Hand Luke, Obama calmly exhibited respect, humility, and confidence. He finally achieved his Colin Powell catharsis. He made a decisive and public break with Bush’s diminutive Dirty Harry personality and that administration’s “clash of civilizations” rhetoric by acknowledging the existence of Muslims as valuable partners necessary in traversing the fragile and volatile terrain known as the global “war on terror.”
Perhaps Obama reflected on the shameful legacies of his campaign, where Muslims were actively encouraged to vote and donate for his presidency, but only if they were hidden, maligned and unacknowledged – like the two veiled women whom his staffers removed from a televised Obama rally. At a fundraiser 12 days before the election, I asked a very high-ranking Democrat why Obama kept shunning Muslim Americans. He shot me a knowing look and responded, “You know - it’s only 12 days before the election,” thereby unsubtly and ironically reminding the Muslims present at the gathering about the detrimental electoral “taint” of being associated with our kind.
However, with his presidency and election now secure, Obama now openly welcomes and identifies with these former political kryptonites: “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”
Many Muslims, although initially offended by what they perceived as Obama’s slight towards their community despite their overwhelming support for his presidency, were nonetheless enthusiastic after hearing Obama’s Al-Arabiya interview, which repeatedly stressed respect towards the “Muslim world.” Faisal Ghori, an American Muslim and Principal at Middle East Ventures, a Middle East and North Africa-focused strategy consultancy, echoed the feelings of many by calling it “groundbreaking for the United States in light of the last eight years” and “a step in the right direction.”
Obama’s initial executive order shutting down the draconian Guantánamo Bay facility further signaled the emergence of a rare leader, making good on his promises and taking concentrated efforts at strategically rebuilding and redeeming our globally maligned image.
However, the tragedy of the Gaza crisis still burdens the hearts of many Muslims who decry Obama’s words as hype and empty rhetoric in light of his refusal to directly criticize Israel for its brutal campaign in Gaza that left over 1,300 Palestinians dead.
When dealing with the Muslims, Obama urged: “We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.” However, his reinforced commitment to Israel – despite the humanitarian crisis and global condemnation surrounding its actions in Gaza – is both polarizing and contentious to Muslims worldwide. When Obama firmly stated: “I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount,” many Muslims lost hope in Obama’s promise – and by extension the desire for a new and “improved” US Middle East foreign policy – due to perceptions of his unconditionally-biased loyalty towards Israel.
As Asilan Ekher, a Turkey journalist chosen as one of the prestigious “Muslim leaders of tomorrow” programme, told me: “If Obama really wanted to give a friendly message to the Muslim world, he would have definitely found a way to denounce the civilian deaths in Gaza in a diplomatic way, as he must know that it is the most sensitive issue for the majority of Muslims around the world at the moment.”
Noorjahan Ali Boolay, a Thai Muslim from Payap University, concurred: “I have to admit that my hope is high from listening to what Obama said [in the interview] but my heart is full of doubts and fears…. No matter how wrong, bad, or unfair the actions are, Israel will get full support and protection from America.”
For a loquacious man like Obama, who stirringly denounced the terrorist Mumbai attacks and spearheaded an economic advisory team even before taking the oath of office, his relative silence on the Gaza crisis was shameful and surprising.
Moreover, Obama’s rhetoric from the interview implies he will continue the US’s dangerously belligerent offensive in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where pilotless drone aircraft attacks have killed more than 300 people – overwhelmingly civilians – over the past year. Obama promised the US is going to be “decisive in going after terrorist organisations that would kill innocent civilians, that we’re going to do so on our terms, and we’re going to do so respecting the rule of law.”
However, Obama must note that “our terms,” which are unnecessarily aggressive and unilateral, will not necessarily be welcomed by the beleaguered population of Central Asia, already hostage to eight years of Bush’s reign of unmitigated violence. Even though the US might consider civilian deaths as collateral damage, they inspire despair and anger which can be exploited by reactionaries for their Islamist jihad agenda.
The 30-year failure of such a myopic policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan can easily be witnessed in the blowback of violence and virulent anti-US sentiments espoused by extremists, who are housed in countries ruled by ineffectual and incompetent leaders. The same can be said about Israel and Palestine. Ultimately, Obama declared the “language we use has to be a language of respect … the language we use matters.” So does enlightened diplomacy. Let’s hope Obama ushers in real change by implementing both.

Wajahat Ali is a Muslim American of Pakistani descent. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders” is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at GOATMILK: An intellectual playground edited by Wajahat Ali

17

......
.....
..
..
.
Obama or no Obama, Islamists will continue taking pot shots at American interests, and American military will continue throwing hellfire on the troublemakers. Both hostage to the past, both ignorant of the present. And the cycle of violence will go on an on.

18

Alhamdullilah and mashallah to that!

19

This was simply was an action taken (wrongly) by overzealous volunteers. So Why does the writer bring up this episode? Did he not know that Obama personally apologized for it and invited them to appear at another rally with him? Either it’s sloppy journalism or, more likely, a lame attempt to smear Obama to try and back his (the writers) point. And once again, President Obama has sent a envoy to the region to help secure the ceasefire and called President Abbas in his first week in office, the writer should note that is indeed real change.

…
Barack Obama personally apologized Thursday to two Detroit-area women who were barred from sitting behind him during a campaign rally because they wore Islamic headscarves.

Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the Democratic presidential hopeful spoke by phone with Shimaa Abdelfadeel and apologized to her. Walid also says Obama left a voicemail for the other woman, Hebba Aref.

Obama released a statement Thursday evening, confirming that he “reached out” to the two women.

“I spoke with Ms. Abdelfadeel, and expressed my deepest apologies for the incident that occurred with volunteers at the event in Detroit,” he said. “The actions of these volunteers were unacceptable and in no way reflect any policy of my campaign. I take deepest offense to and will continue to fight against discrimination against people of any religious group or background. Our campaign is about bringing people together, and I’m grateful that Ms. Abdelfadeel accepted our apology and I hope Ms. Aref and any who were offended accept my apology as well.”

Aref said Wednesday that Obama campaign volunteers had invited them to sit behind the podium during a Monday rally for the Illinois Senator at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. But she said they were told that women wearing hijabs, the traditional Muslim head scarves, couldn’t sit behind the podium — and in front of TV cameras.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic…-apology_N.htm

20

Re: President Obama gives interview to Al-Arabiya

an obama administration on whose orders soldiers are not willing to die and the entire population not willing to accept as their government is best for the world community.

unstabilise his leadership for a better future. he has already given the signs of a serious amount of killing inside pakistan