The NYT goes inside Obama’s War on Terrorism. It’s essential reading and effectively answers the leftist complaint that Obama has not differentiated himself enough from Bush/lived up to promises about change. I think the operative phrase people are using is “change we can make believe in” – one that the article does a lot to refute.
Islam News @ NYT- Women’s Rights in Mideast:
- Driving Miss Saudi: Young women in Riyadh try to balance Islam and modernity as the stunted desert kingdom makes progress in “Saudi Time.”
- A Dispute on Using the Koran as a Path to Jesus: “The Camel Method” for preaching to Muslims has prompted controversy among Southern Baptists.
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
midwinterspring 1:33 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
I didn’t take away quite the same message from this article. Indeed, it seemed to confirm that Obama hasn’t made any substantive changes in the handling of the “war on terror.”
So what was “needed” was not a significant change in American foreign policy, but a different publicity campaign. And that seems to be what we got. Nor does it appear that the left is alone in this perception:
aziz 6:56 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
the atricle was several pages long, and you’re quoting one section of it to argue that the total summation of our very complex response to terrorism is just a PR excercize? well, you’r right, and you’re wrong. I think that trying to precision quote the article does a disservice to the topic’s seriousness.
midwinterspring 7:08 am on January 6, 2010 Permalink |
I could understand your point if Obama stood accused of waging the “war against terrorism” in a way that was no more subtle or nuanced than that of his predecessor. The article makes it clear that Obama is indeed subtler and more nuanced than Bush, even to the point of no longer calling it a “war on terror.” But that is quite irrelevant to those like myself who think the war itself needs to be stopped, rather than renamed and prosecuted in a more careful manner.
cbarwa 1:56 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
Completely disagree with you Aziz, the article itself says the biggest change is the ‘mood music’ from the Bush years. We still have escalation in Afghanistan, increased use of predator drones, no closing down of illegal detention centres operated by the CIA, continued use of unaccountable private military contractors who aren’t bound by the PResidential promise on no torture etc.etc.etc. the list goes on
But why should anyone be surprised, if you look at the record of Democratic admins post-1945 it ain’t exactly a stellar one on these issues.
aziz 7:01 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
again, the problem here is that youve reduced the article to one paragraph. Or one sentence. Actually, just two words!
The article describes quite well the complexity of the decisoins before Obama. Its easy for anyone to simply state flatly that XYZ must occur (“be totally transparent! close Gitmo now! withdraw from Afghanistan!”) but these are diktats, not policy positions. They are ideologically framed instead of acknowledging the reality that Obama was a. not elected on a leftist platform by the majority of Americans and b. there is significant debate even within the rational, liberal foreign policy sphere (the so-called VSP) about what the best course of action is.
The article even makes the point that the Bush Administration itself had largely moderated its influence over the course of its two terms, with a notable quote by Bush about building an infrastructure that even a Democrat could be comfortable with.
I guess I could do tit for tat para quoting here but I prefe not to. Suffice to say that the focus of Chris’s comments (and excerpt) at LOG are more in line with what I took awa as the main point when it comes to Obama’s policies.
cbarwa 9:31 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
Now hang on here, the actual quote is below, I distilled it but it effectively captures what the reporter takes about 4 pages to say in different ways – that was an incredibily waffly article:
Its easy for anyone to simply state flatly that XYZ must occur (”be totally transparent! close Gitmo now! withdraw from Afghanistan!”) but these are diktats, not policy positions.
I didn’t say anything about Guantanamo actually, my position relates to Obama’s Afghan policy which is just wrong and will fail and his continued use of rendition and illegal detention centres, which are not legal measures in my view and don’t work – so simply stop using them. The torture thing is partial, as long as the use of military private contractors continues, it will be a problem – so this too should be phased out. I am not asking for a revolution here, just a gradual transition from stupid and illegal policies to those which are not stupid and not illegal. I don’t think this is asking too much.
Yes, of course, part of the problem is that far too many Americans are satisified with using torture and a foreign policy that relies on military force. That needs to change and I don’t expect Obama to do it because I never thought he was anything more than a centrist, his kowtowing before AIPAC during the campaign was when I lost any residual respect for him. This is not a man who is going to engineer basic changes in how US policy works or Washington.
shams 7:43 am on January 6, 2010 Permalink |
Obama is not a “centrist”.
He is a machiavellian pragmatist.
Wallah, half of the electorate is below the mean of IQ. These people are “natural” conservatives…ie “low information” citizens extremely permeable to demagoguery and fearmongering.
Obama is simply gettin’ HCR done first……priorities.
shams 2:24 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
Pfft.
This is EXACTLY the same as Bush’s late Iraq strategy, after Petraeus told Bush there was no “victory” to be had.
A “surge” to give cover to slinking away from an unwinnable quagmire.
The only difference is Obama is canny enough to set a timetable in advance.
The “surge” didnt work…couldn’t work, and everyone knew it.
Obama’s “speedy-surge” is a hail mary pass to the generals….if it works, okfine….but the odds are astronomical against it. He gave the generals what they ax for is all.
If it doesnt work……we gtfo….go home with honor, or at least plausible deniability.
Right now Obama is expensing his political capital on HCR. Hes rope-a-doping the conservatives.
In a couple months the teabaggers will switch their focus from raging about HCR to raging about amnesty and illegals in an election year.
I fully expect they will damage the conservative brand beyond repair with hispanics and latinos.
Shams al-Nahar 7:58 pm on January 5, 2010 Permalink |
wheres my rebuttal?
lol.
thabet 1:07 pm on January 6, 2010 Permalink |
shams 2:24 pm on January 6, 2010 Permalink |
dude, what is your point?
sacking the Blackwater hirgabi would cost Obama HCR votes and create a cream-of-eagle-word-soup distraction for the teabaggers to rave about.
Let the man pass his bill.
Hopefully before the SotU.