Walking a tightrope requires balance: lean to far one way or the other and you are the latest resident of splatland. In giving his speech today, Obama was walking a metaphorical tightrope.
On one side of the rope is Israel. With some notable exceptions, Israel has been a staunch American ally. In general, we can count on them. Israel also has an extremely powerful lobby in the United States and the Jewish community is powerful and influential. Naturally, most Jews are pro-Israel. Because of these factors, Obama has excellent reasons to be pro-Israel.
On the other side of the rope are the Arab oil suppliers and those who influence them. Since we need their oil, the United States has to maintain at least cordial relations with these countries. While the Palestinians are not a petroleum power, the other Arab countries feel obligated to support them (if only to be against Israel). There is also a moral factor-the United States has, in the past, taken the view that we have a moral obligation in the Middle East-especially in helping to sort out the Palestinian question. As such, Obama has excellent reasons to stay on the good side of the Arab nations. Bringing in Islam, he also has excellent reasons to be on the good side of Muslims. On purely practical grounds, isolating the terrorists from the Muslim mainstream would be a considerable advantage for the United States. We would have fewer enemies and more potential allies.
As with a tightrope, Obama has to stay carefully in the middle. If he tilts too far towards Israel, then he risks the wrath of the folks who control a significant chunk of the oil we rely on. He also risks alienating and antagonizing Arabs and Muslims. If he tilts too far towards the Arabs, then he risks antagonizing Israel and the American Jewish community.
His speech showed his mastery of the high wire: he said the right things to show his support of Israel, but was just critical enough of Israel to keep his balance. He also said the right things about Arabs and Muslims. He showed sensitivity to and knowledge of Islam, but also spoke out against the extremists.
Lest I forget Americans, he also said the right things-such as how his number one job is keeping Americans safe. This third element breaks the analogy to the tightrope, but what the heck.
One concern that some Americans might have is that Obama pledged billions of dollars for Pakistan and other countries. I must admit, that I am concerned about this. After all, my university is going through severe budget cuts. I also have friends at the nearby Florida State University whose departments are being shut down because of lack of funding. There are, of course, many other examples of cases where money is lacking in the United States. As such, one might think that we should take care of Americans first. After all, we are the tax payers.
However, it can be argued that spending this money is actually a good idea. If spending such money advances American interests and security, then it could be money well spent. So, for example, if we can ensure Pakistan’s support with this money, then it might we worth it. As another example, if spending the money helps win good will for America and weakens the influence of radical groups, then it could actually be a bargain. It could well buy us fewer American deaths and also reduce what we need to spend militarily. Of course, whether the money will actually do this or not is a matter of debate.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
I think he did the best he could, given his objectives and the tightrope he was walking.
I frankly don’t expect much reciprocal goodwill from the Muslim world. They have their own reasons for hating us that are independent of anything we have done.
To be honest, past actions did help create Middle Eastern hostility to the West. Laying aside the Crusades and moving up to the 19th and 20th century, the British carved up the Middle East and did the usual imperialistic stuff. After the Brits lost their empire, we stepped in and did some less than nice things-like supporting a repressive regime in Iran. We also helped out Saddam when he was killing Iranians.
I am not claiming that what Americans did in the past justifies terrorism. It obviously does not. But, we need to understand the many factors that shape the attitudes of the folks in the Middle East. We cannot pretend that we are purely innocent victims of unwarranted and irrational hatred. There are legitimate historical grounds for folks there being angry at the United States.
We also cannot pretend that we are the sole cause of all the problems in the Middle East. We have done considerable good in the region and not just because we want the oil there. Many of the things that are said about us are not true. While we are not the great angel, we are also not the Great Satan.
The truth seems to be the usual sort of thing: there is plenty of blame and guilt for everyone. While we need to remember the past, we need to escape its chains if we hope for a better world. There comes a point when progress involves saying “you have done us wrong and we have done you wrong, but now is the time to do right.”
Well, he is a master of talking out both sides of his mouth.
Look, it’s another Democrat for president. They are going to solve all of the problems in the Middle East. I thought Jimmy Carter already did this by the way they talk about his presidency. Oh well, I didn’t expect anything more than wishful thinking and platitudes from him anyway and he surely delivered.
I think you do Carter a disservice. He obviously did not succeed in solving the problems of the Middle East, but he did lay groundwork. He also seemed quite sincere in his desire for peace. For that he deserves some respect.
I think Obama went beyond wishful thinking and platitudes. As he said himself, it was just one speech and a lot needs to be done. It is too early to really judge his administration and his efficacy.
Carter’s sincerity and desire for peace have blinded him as to the realities of the Arab mindset. He still thinks everyone in the world thinks like us.
Oh, I’m sorry. He gets a A for effort but a D- for success. Is that better?
Better than two Ds, I suppose.
It would have been nice for him to say all of the things we have done for the Muslim people in the last 20 or so years.
“Since we need their oil”
Technically we don’t. Most of our oil comes from Canada and we have our own oil anyway. Aren’t we working on energy independence?
If we do get energy independence do we then still need to walk this tightrope that you said he did so well? If not then is it a good reason to do so because they supply oil to us?
We are supposed to be working for energy independence. But, we do get oil from the Middle East and they also have a huge impact on the oil market. If the Saudis decide that it is time to jack up oil prices, they get jacked up. So, I should have added that they have a considerable impact on the oil economy.
From a purely practical (and cynical) standpoint, if oil was no longer critically important to the world economy, then we would have far less reason to be involved in the region. We would still have to worry about terrorists and the possibility of conflict spreading from the region. However, as the oil money ran out we’d need to worry about that less and less. After all, terrorism and war cost money.
Well, Obama should have thanked Bush for smashing al-Qaeda.
They are just mostly smashed. Of course, Bin Laden is hiding in some cave somewhere, squeaking out little taped messages. Assuming, of course, he is still alive.
al-Qaeda is essentially combat ineffective at this point. That didn’t happen by telling the world what bad folks American’s are. For all of the apologies, there could have been ten times the credit given to his own country. Liberals are afraid of saying good things about America. I’ve seen it over and over. In interviews, I’ve seen liberals pressed as to if America is great and good and does more good for the world than any other nation, and libs just can’t bring themselves to say what they know is true. It demolishes the whole idea that we need to change everything, at times mindlessly and randomly.
The Palestinian issue is getting really, really old. At what point do we say: The Palestinians are doing more damage to themselves than anyone else. We know it’s true, but again most people can’t bring themselves to say it. We can talk about them being victims, but Israel would love nothing more than for the Palestinians to decide violence is not the answer. For crying out loud–they elected Hamas as their government. Hamas–a terror org. Great choice. As usual though, the liberals are on the wrong side. They always choose to sympathize with cultures that do almost everything to make themselves fail, and assume that anyone who is doing well, must be doing it by oppression, lies and gross misuses of power. Sound familiar, Mike? For the most part, successful nations are doing more right than the ones who are failing.
The Middle East did not fail because of us. It failed because of them. But that truth would never do well in an Obama speech.
Yes, the Palestinians deserve a share of the blame for their fate. They often pick corrupt and violent leaders (Arafat used his position to amass quite a sum of money) and have chosen poor strategies. Of course, Israel and other countries in the region could do more as well.
Your friend Ralph Peters has an opinion on the speech….
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06062009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/what_obama_taught_me_172894.htm?&page=0
Well said Doug. I couldn’t have done it any better.
Yeah, especially since he has failed kidneys.
The editor of Newsweek says Obama is “sort of God.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/05/newsweek_editor_evan_thomas_obama_is_sort_of_god.html
I’d be shocked, but he does edit Newsweek.
I just put that in another post here. lol.
Only “sort of God”? I take they mean he is Jesus, right?