So much for "tough on terror" from Obama.

[Manedwolf]

If you know anything about the psyche of extremists, they will see this as weakness on our part. And they will be emboldened to attack in the US.

WASHINGTON, (AFP) – President-elect Barack Obama plans to give "a major address" in an Islamic capital soon after taking office as he seeks to mend America's image in the Muslim world, a Chicago Tribune interview said.

"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular," Obama said in the interview published late Tuesday on the Tribune's website.

Obama promised an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."

How about those who chant while beheading Westerners?

Personally, I would prefer "Stop blowing sh__ up, or we'll destroy everything you're fighting for. Because we can. We're holding back. We could turn the goddamned Khyber Pass into a glass trough if we wanted to, but we're holding back. Keep this crap up, and we'll hit you from so high you can't even see the goddamned plane." Oh well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081210/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamadiplomacyislam_081210083044

We're going to be seen as weak. We're going to be seen as weak, and we're going to get hit again, probably with a bioweapon or a nuke. In the US.

Goddamit it.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.

[Boomhauer]

I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.

But Chamberlain proudly proclaimed "Peace for Our Time" after the Munich Conference...

[MicroBalrog]

But Chamberlain proudly proclaimed "Peace for Our Time" after the Munich Conference...

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use the appropriate image macro here.

[longeyes]

What Obama wants is collectivism larded with ecumenical religious overtones.  This will cheer foreigners everywhere; it will take a bit longer to sell to the Americans who once upon a time believed in individual liberty.

[Manedwolf]

This was just so incredibly asinine to announce this. Hillary is probably having a fit, she might be cold, but even SHE knows how stupid this is. Intelligence analysts everywhere are probably facepalming.

If he backs off on this now, it's an insult, and if he goes through with it, it demonstrates how weak we are.

If this sort of horrific blunder is going to happen before he even takes office, the war is going to be over here before Obama Year One is even finished. To the mindset of the people we are fighting, he might as well have just said "We are too weak. We must seek a truce with you, because you are beating us." ...and they give no quarter. They will advance.

I can't believe this. Stupid, stupid, STUPID.

[longeyes]

Well, he's got the "re-boot" part right.

And we can start with just The Boot.

[HankB]

Would Baghdad qualify as " . . . an Islamic capital . . . " for the purposes of this speech?

Might be OK then, if he says the right things.

I'm virtually certain he won't . . . wherever he speaks.

[Viking]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to use the appropriate image macro here.

PM with link atleast.

[ronnyreagan]

If you know anything about the psyche of extremists, they will see this as weakness on our part. And they will be emboldened to attack in the US.

So if extremists can be emboldened by something, we shouldn't do it? If they are emboldened by threats against them should we offer a truce? If they are emboldened by battle should we not fight them? 
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?

he might as well have just said "We are too weak. We must seek a truce with you, because you are beating us." ...and they give no quarter. They will advance.

Did you miss this part of the article, or leave it out to make your little rant easier?

"The message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the terrorist extremism we saw in Mumbai"

[El Tejon]

President-elect Barack Obama plans to give "a major address" in an Islamic capital soon after taking office as he seeks to mend America's image in the Muslim world,

So, he's going to Detroit?

[Manedwolf]

So if extremists can be emboldened by something, we shouldn't do it? If they are emboldened by threats against them should we offer a truce? If they are emboldened by battle should we not fight them? 
Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?
Did you miss this part of the article, or leave it out to make your little rant easier?

You don't get it at all.

They respect one thing. Strength.

If we kill them, they back off.

If we act weak, they go for the throat. The only thing that emboldens them is weakness.

Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?

We shouldn't. We should be killing them as quickly and efficiently and ruthlessly as possible, until they decide it's a bad idea to continue, that they are going to lose everything if they keep it up.

Tell me what happens if you run away from a wild predator instead of standing your ground, walking towards it, or using a weapon to shoot at it, or swing at it?

If you do the latter, it'll usually back off. If you run, you're prey. It will run you down, knock you down, and go for your throat.

That's what we are fighting.

[MicroBalrog]

Why should we let the opinions of people we are fighting dictate our actions?

Because America isn't fighting ALL the Muslims? Because many nations with Muslim populations are ALLIED to the United States?

[Standing Wolf]

He should go to Mecca—and stay there.

[charby]

So, he's going to Detroit?

touche!

[ronnyreagan]

They respect one thing. Strength.

If this were true they never would have attacked us in the first place - we have strength. They cannot destroy us by conventional means, they need to provoke us into overextending ourselves and turning our allies and neutral parties against us. We could easily destroy them (along with millions of innocents) if we were as ruthless as them, but we haven't and we shouldn't because we are supposedly better than them.

If we kill them, they back off.

If we kill them, they are dead. If we kill the bad people without pissing off the good people we can win. We're doing a decent job of killing bad people, but it doesn't do much good if you create two more terrorists for every one you kill. I'm guessing you're not a believer in winning hearts & minds, but you think we can kill our way out of everything. This isn't conventional warfare and collateral damage results in more recruits for the extremists. No one is saying we don't need to fight, it's just that we need to be smart about it. Talking to those neutral parties isn't a sign of weakness, it's a strategic move.

If we act weak, they go for the throat. The only thing that emboldens them is weakness.

What exactly is "our throat" in this discussion? Do we have some weak point that they could attack, but are holding back on? If they can attack us they will, it doesn't matter to them whether or not we say nice or mean things.  However, speaking to the people who are not anti-American can have a positive effect and actually help us win. Explaining to the people that usually only hear their propaganda that we are not the great Satan, is in no way saying "We are too weak." It's saying "We are not your enemy, they are."

[Monkeyleg]

If this were true they never would have attacked us in the first place - we have strength. They cannot destroy us by conventional means, they need to provoke us into overextending ourselves and turning our allies and neutral parties against us. We could easily destroy them (along with millions of innocents) if we were as ruthless as them, but we haven't and we shouldn't because we are supposedly better than them.

Yes, we have strength, but didn't show it until after 9/11. We've been attacked repeatedly over the last nearly 30 years, but never responded with anything remotely resembling a show of force. They assumed that we were a paper tiger.

If we kill them, they are dead. If we kill the bad people without pissing off the good people we can win. We're doing a decent job of killing bad people, but it doesn't do much good if you create two more terrorists for every one you kill. I'm guessing you're not a believer in winning hearts & minds, but you think we can kill our way out of everything. This isn't conventional warfare and collateral damage results in more recruits for the extremists. No one is saying we don't need to fight, it's just that we need to be smart about it. Talking to those neutral parties isn't a sign of weakness, it's a strategic move.

I guess their successful recruiting efforts are the reason they're resorting to using children mentally retarded people for suicide bombings. Also, conventional warfare results in collateral damage as well.

What exactly is "our throat" in this discussion? Do we have some weak point that they could attack, but are holding back on? If they can attack us they will, it doesn't matter to them whether or not we say nice or mean things.

We've been taking down Al Queda so well that they're not as formidable as they were just a couple of years ago, and less able to reach us here at home. I'd say that going for their throat has worked.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'd say that going for their throat has worked.

Well, you're just an eeevil warmonger conservative uneducated hick from flyover country.  You don't understand the nuance and subtleties of international relations as well as your betters understand them.  Obama's enlightened speech in the heart of Islam will show you the right way to protect the US.  He'll make the rest of the world love us by telling the rest of the world how awful America is.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, you're just an eeevil warmonger conservative uneducated hick from flyover country.  You don't understand the nuance and subtleties of international relations as well as your betters understand them.  Obama's enlightened speech in the heart of Islam will show you the right way to protect the US.  He'll make the rest of the world love us by telling the rest of the world how awful America is.

And this is related to the discussion how?

We can go for the terrorists/bad guys while being respectful to the feelings of those of our allies that share our faith.

[roo_ster]

I don't recall FDR or Churchill ever giving a speech in Berlin.

That is because they were leaders, not just callow machine politicians.

[MicroBalrog]

That is because they were leaders, not just callow machine politicians.

Obama is not going to be giving a speech in Damascus, is he?. He will give a speech in a Muslim country friendly to the US.

[longeyes]

We don't need a war on terror, we need a war on being terrified.

We appear to be more afraid of them than they are of us.  I don't mean our military; I mean our population and especially our political class.  I'm tired of hearing about the inevitable WMD attack on our population centers.  Put them on notice; put the fear of [your choice] into them.  Even "shock and awe" really wasn't, as we've learned five years later.  We started out fighting a war and segue'd all too quickly into "spreading democracy" and "nation-building," rather prematurely in the minds of many.  If we think we've won the high ground in this war I think we are kidding ourselves.

I maintain this is about two ideologies: one built on reason and the individual, the other on unreason and the collective.  We might co-exist but we will never really be friends.

[De Selby]

The premise upon which this thread is based is faulty-in order to judge Obama's knowledge of the "psyche of extremists", we'd need some measure of it in the first place. 

Asserting "they only respect strength" is obviously not sufficient to explain 'the psyche of extremists".  They have killed more Americans since September 11 2001 than on that murderous day.  They have also conducted major attacks against US allies in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the terrorists had simply hid and never raised a hand again after the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, this thesis might make sense, but it's hard to see how force can bend all the terrorists when they've actually committed more terrorism since the wars began than before.

[Rudy Kohn]

Terrorism is difficult when the target is 8000 miles away.  Going to where they are provides incentives for them to act locally.
What hasn't happened is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  It's more like trying to dismantle a wasp's nest with your bare hands.  You'll get stung, but it will be harder for wasps to get around and sting others.

For what it's worth, the situation seems far too complicated to be distilled to a handy soundbite.  As much as I'd like to say "They respect only strength," I think shootinstudent has a point in that such a statement is not enough to fully describe their behavior, even though it may help.

At this point, it looks like Obama is going to act the way he said he was going to in his campaign:  He wants to try a more diplomatic approach.  I suppose time will tell whether or not this was a good move.  Unfortunately, the proof that it is a bad move would be thousands of dead Americans.  It would be great if simply going to Muslim countries and talking to the people (who aren't terrorists) made those intent on terrorism less so.  I worry that it will not, that the terrorists will simply call this another "attempt" by "America" to "subjugate their people", and that other shifts in policy might indirectly result in another catastrophe.

I mean, does anyone expect bin Laden or whoever to post a video the day after, saying, "It looks like the imperialist American scum have acquiesced to our wishes for independence, so no more terror, guys, seriously."  I suspect the video would have much more of the tone I stated above, namely, that "President Obama's attempt to sugarcoat the subjugation... etc."

Terrorist groups have myriad motivations and rationalizations for what they do.  Some might want America completely out of the Middle East.  Others might want to see the end of Israel.  The motivations will be as numerous as the groups.  Unfortunately, Obama's policy results in neither of these demands being met.  What reason, then, would a terrorist group with such a goal have for abandoning terror tactics?  I argue that a speech by Obama, even a really good one, that has the people cheering, gives these terror groups no reason to give up.

Sorry about the length.

[ShelleyB.]

What a hypocrite. Everyone knows the Islamists cling to their religion and guns.