The notion that George W. Bush made us hated around the world is scapegoat drivel. Anti-Americanism has been alive, kicking and screaming in the world long before his administration ever took power, and will continue long after his departure….
From Time last month:
When President Obama visits Turkey early next month, some observers are expecting he will use the occasion to deliver on his promise to deliver a major foreign policy speech from a Muslim nation in his first 100 days. But indications are that he will not give the speech in Turkey. The White House and State Department have not yet decided on the location for the speech, which is meant to undo some of the damage done to America’s image in the Muslim world during the George W. Bush Administration.
Liberal propaganda and a complicit media that fueled and indulged Middle East paranoia, conspiracy, and European anti-Americanism is what damaged America’s image and credibility in the Muslim world during the “reign” of “King” George (who stepped down from the “throne” after 8 years of “imperialism” and “unconstitutional” overreach of executive authority).
President Obama’s speech was delivered in Turkey. As reported by the BBC:
Mr Obama devoted much of his speech to calling for a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, admitting that “the trust that binds us has been strained”.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam,” he stated.
“In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”
He said: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.”
“And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship,” he said.
“There is an old Turkish proverb: ‘You cannot put out fire with flames.'”
How is this a departure from George W. Bush? How is the diplomatic tone any different? The extended hand of friendship and alliance? Of mutual interests?
Mona Charen summarizes former President Bush’s respect and rhetoric toward Muslims rather nicely:
George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith — some thought to a fault. (“Why is it,” asked one wag, “that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?”) Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.
This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe — which no one is doing more to promote than the current president — is a libel.
And despite the post-war hardships, he’s essentially liberated 50 million Muslims and set them on the path toward democracy.
Rather than set the record straight and defend the previous American president, our current one indulges, perpetuates, and gives validation to the wrongful misperception that America (especially under the leadership of Bush for 8 years) has been arrogant and at war against Muslims.
America has spent blood and treasure in the defense of Muslims. (You’re welcome). And that’s the reality that President Obama should be stressing if he wants to repair America’s image abroad.
For all his concession/compromising/appeasement/blame America first apologist diplomatic rhetoric, what did President Obama gain from it, on behalf of America? Mona Charen:
But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: “We are at war with America– a permanent war … a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world.” Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration — Rumsfeld’s swipe about “old Europe” — seems downright polite.
There’s nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that’s nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany’s Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.
President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn’t subtle about it either. “Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone,” he said. “This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort.” Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That’s not quite true. According to Fox News, “Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12.”
Funny how President #44 tries to distance himself from being President #43; yet can’t help but follow in #43’s footsteps when it comes to imitating all the things that President Bush got right:
After a week spent assuring the world that he is antithesis of his widely despised predecessor, President Barack Obama ended his first presidential overseas trip by doing a George Bush. In style, substance and photo-ops, Obama’s unannounced stopover in Baghdad was straight out of the Bush playbook.
So pathetically amusing.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I did not see the sad news earlier. Larry, thoughts and prayers for you, your family and your mother, I’m so sorry. It’s a painful chapter in our lives, allow yourself the time you need to get through and beyond.
@Wordsmith:
There are two points here:
1. Regarding rise in Jihadis, prior to the release of these photos most of the people in the region knew that these activities were going on, usually from prisoner who had been released after getting caught up in a neighborhood sweep or from an anonymous tip. Knowledge of this was prevalent to such an extent there was graffiti and posters of the now iconic hooded man some time before the photos were out. Here’s a quote off wikipedia (yes, a quick search) that sums the Iraqi response quite well (Yahia Said, an Iraqi fellow at the London School of Economics):
In light of this, I think it’s fair to say that heavy media attention was much more likely to mitigate the situation; showing Rumsfeld and Bush repeatedly apologizing for what went on and calling it un-American gave some kind of response from the administration, as well as putting a lid on the tall tales (such as child molestation). Whatever whacko was going to blow himself up would’ve done it anyway when he found out his brother was forced into a human pig-pile, not when he read about it in the New York Times.
2. Regarding anti-American sentiment, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. For me, Abu Ghraib was one of the worst atrocities perpetrated in the name of America in recent history, both on its face as well as in the fatal implications it had for the safety of our troops and the viability of our mission in Iraq. Framing the publication of such a story in the context of anti-American sentiment, to me, is deranged. In fact, I doubt that anyone here would agree that journalists need to factor in international public opinion when they are pursuing a story. Would anti-Americanism risen less if the MSM was under government control and did not release anything about the events? Probably, but such a justification is ludicrous. Did the NYT exaggerate or inflame the Abu Ghraib story? I certainly do not think so. But this is last point is where I imagine we differ on a very fundamental level.
@trizzlor: Thanks for responding.
In regards to
1)Yes, the photos were tame in relation to the “rumours and tall stories, as well as true stories”. But for the foreign fighters outside of Iraq, it fueled the jihadi movement and provided propaganda fodder for recruitment by those Arabs looking to fight “the good fight”.
If I remember correctly, CentCom made a press release about investigations going on, months ahead of the 60 Minutes piece that aired. It wasn’t until those photos were broadcast to the world that the media hysteria and obsession started. That, as much as the actual abuses themselves, did as much damage to the effort to secure Iraq, as anything.
Should the public know about the abuses? Yes. But in a time of war, we shot ourselves in the foot, then poured rust into the wound and held a magnifying glass to it.
The act(s) itself endangered our troops yes; the media attention drawing public sensationalism and obsession over it, even worse.
I think you might be misreading where I’m coming from. The story didn’t warrant 32 frontpage NYTimes stories in a time of war, where those stories most likely inflamed and may have almost cost us the war in Iraq.
I’m not saying that reporting the story in itself constitutes anti-Americanism. Or that the abuses in themselves were what was “anti-American”. But what gets drowned out in the rage and sensationalism, which did provide propaganda for America’s enemies, is how Americans themselves were horrified and disgusted and ashamed by the abuses.
Now if we were cutting off hands, gouging out eyes, drilling holes into inmates….those kinds of “abuses” would have been proportional to the obsessive coverage.
Actually, I have mixed feelings on that. Robert Kaplan has written on this topic, concerning war correspondents and being American journalists.
When the NYTimes receives national security leaks that endangers us all by irresponsibly publishing stories, irregardless of the consequences….I think that’s a problem.
I understand that part of the coverage is feeding public hunger for the story; but another aspect is sensationalism.
When the Iraq news coverage is on negativity and atrocities committed without the counterbalance of the good that we had been doing and were trying to get done, then that’s a problem. It’s little wonder if the Muslim world is led to believe that Iraqis are being oppressed rather than liberated by Americans. It should come as no surprise when Americans think all we are doing over in Iraq is dropping bombs on innocent babies and terrorizing the citizenry.
You’re right on that. We disagree.
@Wordsmith:
The 32 number is jarring, but I went and looked up the list off on FreeRepublic and most of these stories are short and procedural detailing what the president said or how the military case was progressing; a few (here, and here) actually do detail the sadness with which Americans are seeing this act, and the possibility that these were bad apples responding to the horrors of war. I’m guilty of nitpicking here, but I think the distinction between an A1 or A5 story is minor, especially when the NYT was running a daily front-page feature called “The Struggle for Iraq,” and that was the big story coming out of Iraq in that month. I don’t think the NYT would have pursued this differently under a Clinton or Obama administration, but I’ll concede that bad news sells much better than good, which makes it much more difficult for any administration to pursue goals in a muddy environment.
Still, the training of suicide bombers has been perfected with extreme psychological precision, and would have gone on undeterred had this story not broke. It is difficult for me to imagine someone joining the insurgency because of what they saw in the NYT, especially when the underlying events were already fairly public. Moreover, look at the Jyllands Posten cartoon fiasco – protest and violence over months-old cartoons of which many were fakes. I don’t think propaganda is particularly difficult to spread in that region.
You do raise an interesting larger question regarding reporting during war. My opinion is that, in the instance of fuck-ups, transparency is the best solution and that reasonable people will see a country which attempts to atone for mistakes (Jihadi’s, of course, are not reasonable people, nor are they the hearts & minds we’re trying to win). You clearly recognize that there is a tug-of-war here, but do not propose a solution outside of some benevolent newsman code that dictates just when to stop chasing paper sales.
Lastly, I think there’s a disconnect when you assume that the NYT has the power to effect opinion world-wide and turn wars, but the president has no impact whatsoever in his diplomatic overtures. There’s been a lot of disdain for Obama’s various addresses to the Muslim world, but we should grant them at least the same opinion-turning potential as we do the blurbs coming out of New York (especially when delivered tirelessly and repeatedly).
Excellent comment, trizzlor! The kind that can influence me into thinking of things differently.
Looking up those stories just hadn’t occurred to me, but it makes perfect sense that not all those frontpage stories are the big sensationalist blurbs I just assumed them to be; I’ve just been using the “32 consecutive frontpage stories” as a parroted talking point. Now I have to think about it more how I use it in the future.
I know I only mentioned the NYTimes, but I used it emblematically for MSM’s reportage in general. We’re only as “informed” as what we’re reading about, and if you’re a young Arab in Jordan reading about American atrocities in Iraq, you might be swayed into the belief by influential voices propagandizing it, into taking up the call to jihad. Primarily and first and foremost, the fault is our own for allowing abu Ghraib to happen in the first place. But when the talk about it drowns out all the good our official U.S. policy is trying to accomplish in Iraq, then that’s a media problem. The perception should read: Americans help to rebuild hospitals, schools, mosques, infrastructures, and are trying to make life better for Iraqis at the expense of their blood and treasure. But that’s ordinary and uninteresting (note the dwindle of coverage post-Surge/Awakening success). So abu Ghraib becomes the face of what is going on in Iraq in the minds of many who might already be skeptical of American purpose in Iraq.
Well, that’s exactly right. Take the “Valley of the Wolves” (side note: about 40 missing comments from a wordpress/moveable type transfer over), a Turkish movie that seemed to do very well at the Middle Eastern box office. It feeds into the anti-American/anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that already exist.
I agree that transparency is important and that showing the world that we take ownership of our mistakes and punish our own through a system of law is important; and we were doing just that prior to the 60 Minutes airing of the inflammatory photos. Of course, public outcry does even more to apply pressure and move changes faster. But it also carry out of hand into the realm of spin by political opponents, which feeds into the propaganda machine of the enemy we are fighting.
Absolutely there are dead-ender takfiri terrorists that are irredeemable. They need no more motivation or excuses. But I also think there are those who are misled and influenced into the romanticized call to jihad, who, had they been getting stories like these, might not have taken up “the good fight” against American soldiers.
How about Hollywood movies that tell positive stories for the war? Every Hollywood anti-war movie has bombed at the box office. So it can’t be box office receipts that drive these movies being made.
How about a Hollywood story about Sheik Sattar? That would put an Iraqi hero’s face on the war effort.
How about reporting on all the news with fairness and balance? To not sell papers by feeding into tabloid-style sensationalism? If you want to attract readers attention, this will do. But if that’s part of what we’re doing over in Iraq, and the 95% of it, then that should occupy the overarching bulk of newsprint stories. I understand that because that’s the ordinary, it’s not really news; that it’s the extra-ordinary that sells and creates headline news; but by feeding into that, you run the risk of creating misperceptions and imbalance. During a time of war, that’s dangerous. It becomes even more important that good news sells and that people understand the positive efforts that are going on. Like I said earlier, we’re only as good as the information we are receiving; and if the overall general impression one is left with by MSM is negativity, then it’s no surprise that public opinion becomes swayed into no longer supporting a war effort. It takes the fight right out of us.
@Wordsmith: First off, I agree with a lot of the essential points you’re making and my initial comment was a complete overreaction based on misreading of your statements.
In my mind, I’ve always believed the media to be a delayed reflection of popular sentiment – if people didn’t agree with it they wouldn’t read it. But this absolves them of shaping public opinion, which they certainly can do (especially as you mentioned, in moderate Muslim countries where people read US newspapers but do not understand the generally hostile role that media has towards government in this country). I err on the side of full transparency because I think there are more long-term benefits in winning international support that way, but I’m wrong to completely deny the role that media has had in flaring up anti-Americanism.
To your latter point, this is something that I have been struggling with for some time, and I’m coming to the conclusion that it is generally very difficult for a modern democracy to fight a long-term asymmetrical war. If you look back at the run-up to Afghanistan and Iraq, the US media was very much on the side of the military and the white house – the pictures coming out of Iraq were of an efficient US engagement leading to an optimistic new democracy. As time went on, the public started to feel the costs of war, both directly in losing friends and loved ones, as well as indirectly in seeing America’s image tarnished by acts such as Abu Grhaib. Moreover, the asymmetric nature of the conflict meant that we couldn’t paint the other side as an inhuman war machine like we did with the Nazis, rather, we see starving children pointing RPGs and terrorists that morph into pleasant shop-keepers by day. A lot of this has to do with the initial unpreparedness for a long war, but even if Rumsfeld had laid this out from the beginning, I feel that public patience would have grown thin.
The biggest threat from terrorism is that it works: Lashkar-e-Taiba perpetrated the Mumbai attacks to destabilize relationships between India and Pakistan, this was very clear from the beginning, and yet the response by India’s government played into those hopes exactly by ramping up anti-Pakistani rhetoric and militarization. Worse, this was the only response that any rational individual could fathom – when someone hits an innocent you hit them back, even if provoking you was their initial intent. As these choices become more and more prevalent, as both sides get some amount of blood on their hands, the fickle public gets fed up and gives up on the whole endeavor. Your solution seems to be a large-scale restructuring of the way media is perceived and motivated. Mine is to fight different kinds of wars, or none at all.
To be fair, I have seen one example where public opinion stayed high during a long asymmetric war – Russia and Chechnya. Albeit, this was essentially accomplished through the nationalization of the free press and blanketing propaganda.
trizzlor,
I’m glad I asked you to elaborate because I enjoyed reading your subsequent comments. Good job!
My initial reaction to your first comment to calling me “deranged”, btw, was to type out
Whoooooooooooooo
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
But then I took my meds and thought…..mmmm….maybe the man’s got a point? Let’s hear him out, because If I’m deranged, I’d like to know about it so I can check myself in somewhere. 😉
Hey Wordsmith. You might want to look into in-home care. You don’t want to be sharing a day room with all those far left bloggers.