Obama’s upcoming speech in Cairo

This week, on June 4th, Barack Obama will give a highly anticipated speech in Cairo. The intended audience is the Islamic world. It’s bizarre that he feels compelled to do so, and unseemly that he chose Egypt (a quasi-friendly dictatorship) as the venue. Presumably this high-profile speech is meant to underline that Obama is serious about his policy of outreach to the Muslim world. And by that I mean the repeated pledges of goodwill and the administration’s commitment to diplomatic engagement. Remember his offer of an outstretched arm to Iran, if it agrees to “unclench” its fist? Remember the trial balloon re negotiating with “moderate” elements of the Taliban?

But does anybody buy this stuff? Well, sad to say, many in the United States feel this is the only way forward. And of course this policy is a godsend to Iran and the Islamist movement generally; they stand to gain from Washington’s appeasement. Yet it is interesting to me that there have been some pointed demurrals — from commentators writing for Arabic publications.

Take this for example:

“There is no more obvious proof of the failure of any attempt to lure moderates from the Taliban into a political settlement than what the Zardari government in Pakistan did recently. The Pakistani regime released the members of the Pakistani branch of the Taliban, as it believed that they can be dealt with, in an attempt to regain control of the Swat province.

“But what was the result? More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people who returned after the truce assuming that stability was restored. More decapitated bodies of singers and artists and people whom the Taliban accuse of ‘indecent’ activities; more attacks on female school teachers, including throwing acid in their faces on their way to work or threatening them with murder if they persist in their professions. As a result, many schools had to close down, while the whole Pakistani province [of Swat] relived the worst days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan before 9/11 and the American invasion…

“The way in which these organizations perceive the West’s new approach towards them also highlights the lack of understanding that the West has of these Islamic movements, as it classifies them into ‘moderate,’ and ‘radical,’ and into ‘political wings’ and ‘military wings.’ In the eyes of these movements, their actions and ideas are completely correct. Hence, they view the West’s openness as a ‘defeat’ of the Western forces that are now seeking dialogue…

“Taliban leaders… responded to Obama’s attempt to lure the ‘moderates’ by urging him to declare his defeat in Afghanistan and to withdraw. [Translation by MEMRI.]

Though they may be few and far between, such commentaries on Washington’s policy appear to be sincere, and this one in particular offers valuable observations — about the West’s continued failure to define the enemy and about the consequences of appeasing it. So let me suggest that our president, an apostle of “dialogue,” spend some time during his speaking tour reflecting on such critiques.