Obama's outreach to the Muslim world

Several friends and loyal readers have asked for my views on an op-ed by Olivier Roy and Justin Vaisse in the Dec. 21 New York Times. (I apologize, but I don't know how to link to it.)

Roy and Vaisse argue that the Muslim world is not monolithic, and should not be treated as such. Nor do they see Islam as a primary source of conflict in the world. Instead, "There are as many bloody conflicts outside of regions where Islam has a role as inside them." They question who the Islamic 'leaders' are to whom Obama would speak, and argue that linking by Islam and terrorism, Obama would reinforce the potential for alienation among Western Muslims. Rather than convene a meeting, Obama should close down the prison on Guantanamo, withdraw from Iraq, ban torture, and push for peace in the Middle East.

The points Roy and Vaisse raise are mostly true - but irrelevant. Radical Islam has declared war on the United States, Europe, Israel, and many Muslim countries and is doing its very best to destroy them. President Bush has spent 7 years telling anyone who would listen (admittedly a small group) that he does not/not accept the 'clash of civilizations' concept; that the United States is not waging war on Muslims; and that Islam is a religion of peace.

Roy and Vaisse completely ignore Bush's effort, thereby dodging the need to explain why it hasn't worked. Instead, they recommend that Obama satisfy the standard laundry list of European demands, although they fail to say why doing so will reconcile the United States with the Muslim world. (Will the Saudis really be happier if we withdraw completely and immediately from Iraq, to the benefit of Iran? Why will leaning on the Israelis to go easy on Hamas impress Egypt, which is busy shooting Palestinian civilians trying to escape from Gaza into Egypt?)

So, as Nancy asked me, where should Obama give his speech to the Muslim world? I think that's a difficult question, but less important than the question of what it is he wants to say. The governments in most Muslim countries have encouraged hatred and resentment of the United States and Israel as a way of deflecting popular anger from their own regimes. That anger has also benefited radical Islam, which in many places is the most obvious alternative to corrupt local rulers.

In this situation, Obama might as well stand up for American values. He cannot win by denigrating the United States - especially by apologizing to a part of the world that views apologies as weakness. Nor will Obama benefit from whitewashing the threat we face. If it were to become clear that his speech would follow those lines, the question of venue would probably resolve itself into a very short list.