Donations
| Support the Qudosi Chronicles |
Newsletter
Search
Romancing the Primitive | A Truthful Look at Societies that Don't Evolve
Glorifying Primitive Cultures
Read More...
Can 30,000 More Troops "Fix" Afghanistan?
A Response and Alternative to the War in Afghanistan
JERUSALEM DIVIDEDPalestine to Receive Stake in Jerusalem
Why Latest EU Plan is a Failed Idea
| Why Obama's Speech Failed to Deliver
Written by Shireen Qudosi
|
|
Thursday, 21 May 2009 20:07
President Obama’s recent national security and anti-terrorism policy speech was an opportunity for Obama to highlight his strengths, to display strong leadership, set out a clear road map for combating terrorism, and above all give us a concrete indication of his disposition on the war on terror.
Instead, it was a defensive maneuver that stood out as a stark cry against recent attacks on his administration. It was a speech riddled with a convoluted game plan and his trademark over-use of rhetorical devices. However, a few key points are worth mentioning and responding to. Citing the Constitution, Obama declared that “we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.” But what of that rising minority, a soon to be global majority, who twist the ideals and safeguards of such monumental documents as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and subvert the authenticity of their meaning in order to promote an agenda driven by Islamic domination. Islam is a highly politicized faith; it’s structured not only as a faith but as a guideline for society. Adherents to Islamic ideology, will without question favor its indoctrination into a Western sociopolitical framework. And while active adherents work to push this agenda, they retain a silent majority who tacitly support such movements because they believe it in their best interest (since the agenda is premised on perceived Islamic values). In this way it becomes a war and sides must be chosen. You cannot pick both Islam and the West. The crux of Islamic ideology, paired with a scriptural and historic analysis, does not accommodate alternative points of view. And from its standpoint, why should it? The societal framework handed down by God himself through the Quran is, in the eyes of most Muslims, ultimately no match for a system designed by men. And while this system also invokes heavy Judeo-Christian values, and while it is a system premised on truth and equity, it's unfortunately not perceived as such by the vast majority of Muslims who, when made to choose (as the direction is being forced), will for the most part side with the beliefs impressed on them at birth rather than the ideals taught to them at a later age. The real battlefield for the war on terror is in the hearts and minds of Muslims. The “war on terror”, as it is still referred to even if not labeled as such officially, goes far beyond zealot fanatics or armed radicals and directly the psyche of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. To win the war, we have to understand them. We have to understand what influences them – a dense asphyxiating influence when considering the religious and spiritual misinformation panhandled from “scholars” to followers, and from follower to follower. In such an equation, fact and logic are absent and instead decisions are based on emotional appeals to religious and cultural ideology. It is this culture of panhandled faith, of critically limited questioning (or not being bold enough to ask the right questions), that those with misguided agendas, those who hold the Quran up high but could not be further removed from God, have a vast percentage of the human population in either direct or indirect support of their initiatives. It is this percentage that we must reach out to in all manners possible; this percentage in all corners of the globe whom we must keep addressing until they awake and accept the great responsibility pressing on their shoulders with the burden of a hundred worlds. That is our responsibility and that is our duty whether or not we realize it, and whether or not we choose to accept it. It is a resolution that calls us to action, louder and louder with each passing feigned act of tolerance that only empowers those people and those elements in radical Islam that will never stop until they have not only subverted our democratic systems, but have destroyed it completely and upon its torched remains have built the foundation of a world-wide Islamic empire. And so yes, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of justice, of tolerance, equality and truth – for the sake of a world with unbound potential, we cannot (under any pretense or for any excuse) turn our back on the core ideals that have shaped all that is good in our society, the principles that have chartered our destination, and the unharnessed determination that can navigate us into a bold and wondrous future. And while Obama speaks of these ideals, in order to live up to them he must recognize the importance of taking the necessary steps that strip radicals of their power and of their authority. The appearance of things do not matter, and the farce of political correctness is now a very real leper that has leapt across the Atlantic pond and into our territory, a hidden disease that masquerades as tolerance and acceptance; a disease masked – but a disease nonetheless. And while, “America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology,” America cannot risk down playing the unpleasant reality of an enemy that has spiraled out of control, a hydra that continues to sprout new heads in new forms. While we have not yet had another 9-11 on U.S. soil, we cannot be simple enough to think that the absence of such an attack is any real indication that we’re winning the war on terror, or the hearts and minds of escalating numbers of educated moderate Muslims who still shield themselves from a truthful discussion on this issue – a sentiment that shows a disturbing mindset. As he stated, “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.” But what we’re still missing is a plan of action in fighting a war that has escaped beyond terrorist organizations and has encroached closer in new shapes and forms. The steps taken thus far by the Obama administration are only stepping stones. This speech was an opportunity to clearly layout his position and his perception of this war. Rather than position, we were filled with idealism, rhetoric, and an attack on the last eight years rather than understanding the frustrations of those years – a move that is not only politically divisive but divides the American people from their own recent history that no matter how unpleasant, is still our history. From the last 8 years we know now that we cannot simply throw bombs and money at the problem. The strongest nation in the world is waging a war in which its strength does not matter. In the last few years through facing intangible wars, we have just now awoken as a nation to truly understand the broad parameters of the form of terrorism we’re dealing with. It is a battle beyond the scope of military might. It is a battle entrenched in perception. ----------------------------------- Highlights from Dick Cheney's Response:
On Terminology: "Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term 'war' where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, 'Overseas contingency operations.' In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, 'man-made disaster' – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack. And when you hear that there are no more, quote, 'enemy combatants,' as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose." On Torture: "Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a 'recruitment tool' for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, 'We brought it on ourselves.' It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.... If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity." On 'Open Government': "Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing?" If you enjoyed this article, then please show your support.
blog comments powered by Disqus |
