Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya

[Sisyphus]

On January 26 Barack Obama had his first televised interview as President, which he gave to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya. The subject was, naturally, his approach to the Muslim world. A lot of liberal commentators are celebrating it, declaring "the war on terror is over," etc. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think it's a huge improvement in tone over Bush, and I'm interested (and actually optimistic) to see how Islamic public opinion of the United States develops over the next few years. I think he came across as firm, but still respectful, openminded, and appreciative of the complexity of the situation. That alone should get him much farther than Bush, even if he doesn't change a single concrete policy. What do you think? Here is the transcript:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/obama-muslim-tv.html

[iNow]

It's a very strong message, and I was very proud of it. I'm frustrated by the response by our friends on Faux News and the right, talking about how he's "cozying up" to terrorists and crap like that. He's leading by example, and I personally like it.

 

It reinforces his message from the inaguration. He had lines like "your people will judge you for what you build, not for what you destroy," and "we will always be willing to reach out a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

 

It's nice to see that rhetoric being reinforced by action. Making his first televised interview as president on a Muslim news station sent a huge message, and that ALONE is a ginormous change over the stance of the last administration.

 

It's unfortuate that Iran has been so negative, too. Interesting that the Iranians and the neocons have that in common.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I enjoyed that line about them being willing to unclench their fist. I too am pleased with this new tone. Like Sisyphus said, even if it doesn't lead to a single policy change, this is one of those areas where symbolism is a sort of substance.

 

I still don't care for wholesale defense of Israel, but I do appreciate his more even handed approach to their conflict. Looks like he's carefully balancing the net will of the country while remaining logically centered, or so I think.

 

That said, I do think Iran sees it as weakness. And I do believe they will do something to exploit this new tone, and in some ways they've already started. However, that's international politics for ya'. You show up nice, they take it as weakness. You show up mean, they take it as bullying. What matters is that we lead by example, and hopefully attempt to use a posture that expresses fair, disciplined strength. Obama's words seem to convey that, I think.

[Sisyphus]

I wonder about the bullying/weakness perception. The main difference here is not what we're willing to give (which might be seen as weakness), but the whole posture of discussion. The problem with "carrots" vs. "sticks" is that they're both insulting. (You're treating them like a mule! Your mule!) Obama seems to be trying to lead by example without without talking down to foreign nations, which I imagine will be tricky but worth it, assuming he can pull it off.

[SH3RL0CK]

I wonder about the bullying/weakness perception. The main difference here is not what we're willing to give (which might be seen as weakness), but the whole posture of discussion. The problem with "carrots" vs. "sticks" is that they're both insulting. (You're treating them like a mule! Your mule!) Obama seems to be trying to lead by example without without talking down to foreign nations, which I imagine will be tricky but worth it, assuming he can pull it off.

 

Can he pull it off? I certainly hope so, and no doubt it will be at least partially successful. Western Europe for example already has a better view of America but I suspect Iran, Syria, the PLO, Venezuela and possibly other nations have reasons to not permit a reduction of the rhetoric. I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for an end to diplomatic friction, they will continue to find ways to make the USA look evil (at least to their citizens). For a dictatorship, its just too easy to blame someone else (the USA for example) for your problems rather than yourself.

[Mr Skeptic]

I too am glad that his talk about change wasn't all empty rhetoric.

[padren]

That said, I do think Iran sees it as weakness. And I do believe they will do something to exploit this new tone, and in some ways they've already started. However, that's international politics for ya'. You show up nice, they take it as weakness. You show up mean, they take it as bullying. What matters is that we lead by example, and hopefully attempt to use a posture that expresses fair, disciplined strength. Obama's words seem to convey that, I think.

 

I think Iran is split on the issue: moderates are optimistic regarding improved relations and the opportunity to "tone it down" a bit, while the extremists who have no desire for improved relations fear the approach may work, and will only step up rhetoric to "warn" the rest of the Islamic world (ie, other Islamic nations somewhat estranged from the US) how evil we really are and not to be fooled.

 

It's not likely seen as weak, but as a threat that can erode the anti-American sentiments that give common cause to nations scared of the US's foreign policy.

 

In rhetoric, they'll call us "weak" for it of course, because they want to influence us away from that course of action.

[Pangloss]

A lot of liberal commentators are celebrating it, declaring "the war on terror is over," etc. I wouldn't go that far,

 

I agree. I think we're just getting started. And in the grand scheme of things we're about to do exactly what Bush really wanted to do but so poorly expressed and implemented it (and because the ideological deck was automatically stacked against him as a Republican) that he could not.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree. I think we're just getting started. And in the grand scheme of things we're about to do exactly what Bush really wanted to do but so poorly expressed and implemented it (and because the ideological deck was automatically stacked against him as a Republican) that he could not.

 

I'm by far not an expert in politics, but did you just say that Bush starting two wars was his way of expressing a sincere desire for peace?

[Pangloss]

In a manner of speaking, yes. Although I would say that Iraq appears to be a flat-out error in judgment (on epic scale), not an example of poorly implemented policy for victory over terrorists. But I don't consider Afghanistan such an exception, not many other aspects of Bush Doctrine, nor does our new president, who is sending additional troops to Afghanistan and just got through bombing Pakistan.

 

Why do you think he started two wars?

[Mr Skeptic]

Why do you think he started two wars?

 

So we have yet another reason to bash him?

 

I don't think simple poor judgment is enough to explain Iraq. I think there was malice (intentional deceit, ulterior motives) on someone's part, though I can't say who it was.

 

As to the war in Afghanistan, I don't think there was much deceit with that, and it does seem like a worthy cause

[iNow]

Obama did his first interview on Al-Arabiya for many more reasons than just our fuster cluck in Iraq. The issue is both broader and deeper than that lone piece of history... IMO.

[DrDNA]

Am I the only one that is delighted that he said what he said on Al-Arabiya, but sort of wishes that he would have made his FIRST televised interview on a US-focused medium?

 

The reason's I might be feeling that way include,

1. It gives all the bigots more fodder about his middle name and "his hidden Muslim agenda".

The emails are flying as we type folks.

I definitely don't think we want to hear any more of that garbage between now and 2012 and especially leading up to 2012.

2. I honestly have to admit that it made the conspiracy theorist in me's ears perk up and look for a hidden agenda if only for just a moment.

 

So, why didn't he just do Al-Arabiya second?

Is it simply because he views issues in the middle east as more pressing than our domestic issues?

I.e., Is world destruction (starting from the middle east) more imminent than domestic destruction? It may be but I'm not convinced one way or the other.

[Sisyphus]

I think the "conspiracy theorists" only come out of their holes in election years. I don't think there are still enough people who think he has a "secret Muslim agenda" or whatever to matter at all, so let them talk, and let people see for themselves how ridiculous they are. Sending a message to the Islamic world, on the other hand, is of enormous importance.

[ParanoiA]

That's interesting DNA, that didn't even dawn on me. But I haven't heard much in the way of conspiracy theories about any "hidden agenda". I remember it being mentioned during the campaign, but I never thought it actually grew any wings.

[iNow]

I think the "conspiracy theorists" only come out of their holes in election years. I don't think there are still enough people who think he has a "secret Muslim agenda" or whatever to matter at all, so let them talk, and let people see for themselves how ridiculous they are.

Absolutely. Just give them enough rope and eventually they will hang themselves.

[CaptainPanic]

Am I the only one that is delighted that he said what he said on Al-Arabiya, but sort of wishes that he would have made his FIRST televised interview on a US-focused medium?

 

The reason's I might be feeling that way include,

1. It gives all the bigots more fodder about his middle name and "his hidden Muslim agenda".

The emails are flying as we type folks.

I definitely don't think we want to hear any more of that garbage between now and 2012 and especially leading up to 2012.

2. I honestly have to admit that it made the conspiracy theorist in me's ears perk up and look for a hidden agenda if only for just a moment.

 

So, why didn't he just do Al-Arabiya second?

Is it simply because he views issues in the middle east as more pressing than our domestic issues?

I.e., Is world destruction (starting from the middle east) more imminent than domestic destruction? It may be but I'm not convinced one way or the other.

It's not the world destruction that is coming from the Middle East that requires direct attention from the president. It's oil. And apparently, president Obama intends to get this oil with friendly talks rather than military invasions. And I applaud that.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the US army is occupying (assisting in bringing democracy to) two countries in that region. Again, that makes the region very important to the president of the USA.

So, perhaps the Middle East is more important to the US than you like?

 

Anyway, actually giving the 1st speech to that channel was a very important message to the region. President Obama takes it serious.

[DrDNA]

So, perhaps the Middle East is more important to the US than you like?

 

You got that right!

 

Much like how heroine is more important to a heroine addict than it should be.......

[Mr Skeptic]

I like heroines!