21 Aug

Over 2 years After President Obama’s Cairo Speech…

                                       

A souvenir shop's owner displays a recently made metal plaque reading 'Obama, New Tutankhamun of the World' in Cairo, June 1, 2009. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

Then:

“My dear sir, President Obama… We all hated America before you came, but now… an olive branch and a… ‘Hamama’ [dove]!”-Abbas Chechan, Iraqi poet

And now:

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” -Arab proverb

Wasn’t our standing in the world supposed to improve in the Age of Obama? Weren’t we “hated” due to 8 years of oppressing Muslims under the evil, warmongering Bush Regime?

A recent Zogby analysis- Arab Attitudes, 2011- finds that President Obama’s charm offensive Apology Tour, his bowing and bombing campaigns, his “support” for Libyan rebels and non-support for Iranian democracy, distancing and abandonment of traditional allies (Israel & Mubarak), his broken promise to close Gitmo, his perpetuation of Bush-era wars (and in some ways, expansion) in spite of the name-changes and the makeovers, have all resulted in a worsening of America’s standing in the Arab world:

Executive Summary
• After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran’s favorable ratings (except in Saudi
Arabia).

• The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and U.S. interference in the Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East.

• While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab World are 10% or less.

• Obama’s performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.

• The U.S. role in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya receives a positive rating only in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, but, as an issue, it is the lowest priority.

• The killing of bin Laden only worsened attitudes toward the U.S.

• A plurality says it is too early to tell whether the Arab Spring will have a positive impact on the region. In Egypt, the mood is mixed. Only in the Gulf States are optimism and satisfaction levels high.

Expectations ran high in the Arab world that President Obama might bring about change they could believe in. But like many Americans, they’ve grown disillusioned with this President, bringing approval ratings lower in 2011 than in 2008 (the last year of President Bush’s 2nd term). Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has not been quelled by this president:

C. Substantial majorities of Arabs in almost every country view both the U.S. and Iran as not “contributing to peace and stability in the Arab World.” The U.S.’ contribution to the region is viewed less positively than Iran in every country except Saudi Arabia.

Lebanon is the only Arab country that sees Iran contributing to peace and stability in the region.

The roles of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are appreciated by strong majorities in every country.

D. Overall, Arabs view the two greatest threats to the region’s peace and stability to be “the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands” and “U.S. interference in the Arab world.” Only in Saudi Arabia does the concern with “Iran’s interference in Arab affairs” rank as a top concern.

President Obama’s foreign policy ranks below that of Erdogen, Sarkozy, Ahmadinejad, and Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.

Turkish demonstrators step on a poster of President Barack Obama during a protest in Istanbul April 7, 2009. REUTERS/Gurcan Ozturk

It is noteworthy that the two issues on which the Administration has invested considerable energy—”the Palestinian issue” and “engagement with the Muslim world”—receive the lowest approval ratings – less than 9% across the board.

Apparently the Israel-Palestinian issue remains a hot-button topic in the Middle East and how it affects U.S. relations with the Muslim world there.

Neither did the killing of Osama bin Laden do anything to improve our favorable ratings in the countries surveyed (which apparently did not include Pakistan….but we already know how most Pakistanis feel about having their sovereignty violated).

A plurality in Egypt say they are worse off now than they were before the Arab Spring but remain optimistic for the future.

This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Baracks Broken Promises, Middle East, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, August 21st, 2011 at 7:01 pm
| 1,014 views

102 Responses to Over 2 years After President Obama’s Cairo Speech…

  1. another vet says: 101

    @openid.aol.com/users/110: Before responding, let me say that I am not sticking up for the French. They dropped the ball and we, being the new prominent western power, were left hanging onto it. On to your experiments.

    1. Ho was a Communist first and foremost. Check out his bio. He was a Communist before he was a nationalist therefore he was looking to unite Vietnam under a Communist dictatorship. He did not disband the Indochinese Communist Party in 1946 like he pretended to do. His “model” for Vietnam was based on Stalin’s model for the Soviet Union and Mao’s model for China. When he went to France for independence, his deputy Vo Nguyen Giap was busy killing, imprisoning, or exiling political opposition. Ho’s factions were made up of pro Soviet and pro China factions but no pro western factions. He was not a Southeast Asia version of Tito therefore he was pro Soviet, pro China, or a combination of both. When Ho went to Truman for help, Truman never responded. Based on what was happening in VN, do you think Truman was going to support someone like that, especially over the French who we had just lost tens of thousands of lives liberating from the NAZI’s? Had we have laid out terms like you suggested, based on Ho’s actions, background, and subsequent history, I seriously doubt that he would have abided by them.

    2. As for Cuba, Castro is/was a Communist dictator who we should have taken out when we had the chance. Not doing so and allowing him to become a Soviet puppet, brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. I’ve known Cubans who risked life and limb going back to Cuba to smuggle out family members. He’s not the nice guy the Hollywood historical revisionists make him out to be. He too was a brutal Communist dictator. Before he took power, Cuba was the up and coming star of the Caribbean. Now, you are either a rich Communist or a poor Communist. So much for bettering Cubans.

    As for your Ike link, I’m well aware that he said most Vietnamese would have voted for Ho. But again, when you look at history, ten times more fled South than North in the 50’s. In ’68 after the VC were crushed during the Tet, a U.S./SV victory that our press labeled a defeat, the North had to launch a conventional invasion to finally conquer the South. 2 million more fled. In 1976, 99% voted for the Communist candidate. An clear indication of rule through fear. Based on those facts, I question the extent of the support the Communists actually had.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 102

    @openid.aol.com/users/110:

    2. What if we’d normalized relations with Castro’s Cuba decades ago?

    Then odds are the Castros would be in a much more solid position of power than they are now.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>