Obama in Cairo
I watched the entirety of President Obama’s speech this morning, and I have to say I was impressed. I was a critic of our nation’s foreign policy under the Bush administration for nearly the entire two terms and I’ve been waiting to see a more even handed, neutral approach to matters in that part of the world, as well as a clear definition of our wars and America’s attitude toward the religion of Islam. Today, while not completely to my tastes, we got most of that. The speech was, I feel, fairly historic in nature, as long as we understand that one person talking for an hour isn’t going to change the world. (As the President aptly pointed out.)
Allowing respect for the individuality of all nations should be a cornerstone of American foreign policy, even when we disagree. Further, recognizing that both sides in every conflict have responsibilities if peace is to be achieved is equally important, whether we’re talking about Iran and the United States or Israel and the Palestinians. Today’s appearance wasn’t a fix for anything, but I do hope it opens the door for actors in good faith to take the next step in that part of the world. I’ve been quite unhappy with Obama’s handling of certain domestic issues thus far, particularly in terms of the economy, but this speech was one of the high points of his administration thus far for me.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Obama in Cairo”
I thought it was a good speech too.
He is probably the right kind of messenger for this type of approach at this time. It’s always easier to deliver a “let’s all get along” and “new beginnings” speech after one side has thoroughly kicked the other side’s ass.
Make no mistake about it, the people of the Middle East thoughtSaddam Hussein’s army was formidable. It was the fourth largest standing army in the world and the only equal to Iran’s military. When Don Rumsfield swept it aside in 3 weeks, while taking care not to disturb any small animals or plants, with only a quarter of the troops everyone thought was needed, the U.S. focused the attention of the Arab states into knowing they could be next.
Obama gives great speech, primarily due to his willingness to make shit up as he goes along. I loved the part about how the U.S. was shaped by the contributions of the Muslim world. He scored big by saying one country can’t impose a democracy by force on another (we’ll hide Japan, Germany) and his declaration about never using “torture” was great (although he’s reserved the right to do it if he need to).
All in all, he did a good job. This President could be one that reaches a turning point in the Middle East and let’s all hope he does.
Obama has shown that there's a change in US plicies but hope that this will be a real change and far than a political theroies: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/06/…
Jwest–
I thought it was generally agreed that Don Rumsfeld didn't have enough troops to successfully pacify Iraq in 2003, and that's why we're still there over six years later.
I also thought it was generally agreed that there had been quite a high number of Iraqi casualties among the human population (I confess to knowing very little about the small animals or plants there).
And if you're wondering how many Arab states fear they'll be next for a US invasion, I'd think that number was zero. Maybe you've got other information?
I'd also be interested in your source for saying Obama has reserved the right to torture.
I know you like to be satirical, but it's hard to get any meaning from your comment.
I only saw the latter 2/3rds (but live at 1:00 AM Hawaii time, go me), but what was most remarkable about the speech to my ears was that his intended audience really did appear to be the people of the Middle East. It wasn't a speech to Americans about Middle Eastern topics, nor really a speech directly to their governments. Instead, it was just a first step in re-establishing semi-coherent relations with the people. It was overall well done.
“I thought it was generally agreed that Don Rumsfeld didn't have enough troops to successfully pacify Iraq in 2003, and that's why we're still there over six years later.”
George, the reason you thought that is because you get your news from leftist sources. In reality, Rumsfeld proved the theory that coordinated forces could obtain their objective with a fraction of what previously was thought to the optimum.
There was disagreement with the Joint Chiefs regarding this method, due in large part to the realization that if it worked, there could be substantial cuts in material and troops in future conflict planning.
The plan worked brilliantly.
Using speed, air dominance, highly coordinated movement and strikes and the combination of different forces, the objective was accomplished in 21 days with only a few hundred casualties. What would have taken 500,000 troops in previous wars (and with less visionary leaders) was now shown to be capable with a fraction of the manpower.
Now, remember that the objective was to capture the capital city, remove the leadership and render the Iraqi forces incapable of a coordinated opposition.
A bumbling State Department (egged on by the New York Times and the rest of the MSM) insisted on keeping a “liberator” posture as opposed to an “occupier” face on our force structure. Bush made the decision to keep the troop count low, thinking (as I did at the time) that some Iraqi, perhaps a lawyer or doctor or TV celebrity – somebody – would step up and become a leader we could back during reconstruction. We were both wrong.
Informed parties still debate the issue of a large force in the initial post-invasion stages. Some (with me included) believe Iraq had to go through a period of insurgency for the natural evolution and progression of the cultural and power structures. We believe that if our presence on the ground was substantially larger, we would have presented a more target-rich environment for the internal insurgents and foreign fighters. Only after experiencing a time when fruitless and seemingly endless fighting went on could the groups that matter come to the realization that the U.S. was not in Iraq to steal or rule.
Yes, a surge was needed with more troops to secure areas and bring a feeling of safety to the populous and no one can say whether or not it would have worked earlier.
Iraqi civilian casualties on a subsequent post.
Iraqi civilian casualties:
“I also thought it was generally agreed that there had been quite a high number of Iraqi casualties among the human population (I confess to knowing very little about the small animals or plants there).”
Once again, the leftist fantasy machine was kicked into high gear. By the very nature of this war – the low number of troops used, the precision munitions and the media-friendly manner in which it was conducted – all led to an extraordinarily low civilian casualty count.
Bombing, the usual cause of civilian casualties had no fewer than three control checks per target. Not only did the unit requesting the delivery need to justify the significance of the target, but a second evaluation had to be performed by a different authority before the entire strike was reviewed by military legal counsel. Any target that was identified with a high probability of civilian casualties needed to be designated as essential to the mission and endless paperwork had to be filed attesting to the fact that the same objective couldn’t be accomplished by any other means with lower risk to the civilians.
There has never been a war where civilian lives were held in such high esteem.
Common sense and a calculator will show you that the crazy estimates coming from anti-war groups were made up out of whole cloth. By some group’s numbers, it would have been difficult to get from one end of Baghdad to another without climbing over mountains of dead bodies.
The plan to invade Iraq, remove the leadership and turn it into a western democracy hinged on keeping Coalition-inflicted civilian casualties exceptionally low. That was exactly what happened.
I know you like to be satirical, but it's hard to get any meaning from your comment.
Admirably written, George. I was feeling completely immobilized trying to figure out how to respond to something that just basically reversed the truth. I mean, it's one thing to disagree, or to interpret events from varying points of view, but if someone tells you that he saw a coach turn into a pumpkin on his way home at midnight, how do you argue that point? Do you say, No, you didn't, because that's a scene from Cinderella, and Cinderella is a fairy tale?
You found a way, and I applaud you for trying, but look at how he responded. He just told you that he did, too, see a coach turn into a pumpkin and the reason you think otherwise is because you are getting your information from textbooks instead of the collected set of Perrault's fairy tales.
To paraphrase jwest himself, he makes a great argument, primarily due to his willingness to make shit up as he goes along.
Better you than me, but you do the best job anyone could have done under those circumstances.
“…..how many Arab states fear they'll be next for a US invasion,…..”
They know the U.S. won’t invade under this or probably the next President, but they did witness how the military made a cake walk of destroying what was considered a formidable army.
My source for saying Obama reserved the right to torture is Barack Obama. I will search the speeches, but even the following day, it was reported that he “reserved the right to do what was necessary for the protection of the United States”. He was given a pass by the press to further explain that line, but Robert Gibbs, when pressed, admitted that the meaning of “whatever is necessary” meant just that.
Jwest–
I think I'm finally getting the points you're making:
1– That the first three weeks of the war are what make Rumsfeld so visionary.
2– That the problems that followed are mainly the fault of the State Department, followed in blame by the Mainstream Media, then the natural evolution of post-Saddam Iraqi society–although you concede President Bush left the troop count too low.
3– That it took a lot of paperwork to kill anyone, let alone bystanding civilians, so it's just not possible to have killed very many civilians.
4– That there won't be any other invasions, but if there were, our Military could destroy their Military in a very short time (say, about three weeks).
5– That Obama (mainly by way of Gibbs) is ready to torture if he thinks it “necessary”.
I'm trying to be fair to you in making this summary. But I have to say, I think Kathy K has your number.
Absent sources (I thought it was clear I was asking you to provide links to them), you're just going on your memory and subsequent impressions. In response to you, I'm going to do the same.
1– Rumsfeld? A visionary? Oh, Jwest, please get out of here!! See, this is why I think you're kidding. Rumsfeld may have had a few good weeks at the beginning, but the chickens came home to roost soon enough. We're still there more than six years later, Jwest. Rumsfeld = FUBAR, my friend.
2– The State Dept and the MSM are handy, all-purpose scapegoats for right wingers. I had some hope you could do better.
3– I agree with you that our Military has taken heroic measures to keep the number of civilian casualties low. But by definition, civilian casualties are the result of mistakes, however neat the paperwork was. And I remember stories of the Military trying to lowball the number of civilian casualties by tallying a lot of violent deaths under the heading of gangster-style murders. I don't really have much of a handle on the number of civilian casualties. But the war has lasted over six years. Common sense tells me there've been a lot of civilian casualties just on that basis alone. If you had a source to a number I could evaluate, I might be persuaded. But I really don't think you have common sense on your side for this.
4– There won't be any other invasions because they've seen they can successfully stymie us. Really, if Rumsfeld had been able to sustain those visionary three weeks, things might have different today. I certainly remember calls for the invasion of Iran and Syria back in the early days of the war. But come on, Jwest–they've learned a totally different lesson than the one you're claiming. They don't need a large military, they just need to be people who don't like being invaded.
5– I remember Obama saying torture was a violation of American values. That's what I remember.
I appreciate your admission that you agreed with President Bush's mistaken thinking about troop levels. But I think Kathy's right about you just making stuff (language!!) up because it suits the way you wish it had been.
I think jwest is quite correct, the military did great at the take-the-hill part of the war. That's what they do for a living.
But immediately after that, they inherited a peacekeeping and nation-building mission they weren't trained for and have had a tough time picking it up as they go.
This was a colossal failure of top-level leadership, and certainly Mr. Rumsfeld deserves a good measure of blame.
In case it's not clear, I also think our military did a great job at what Dr J called “the take-the-hill part of the war.”
There is just no fooling Kathy. She watches Keith Obermann.