The very idea of a speech addressed to more than a billion diverse people, with different grievances against America, seems ludicrous. My advisers have been after me to do this, from before I was elected president, but I have finally decided that no speech can fail to be patronizing, condescending, beside the point. A speech billed as a major one suggests a gap in reality. Rhetoric is used to paper over that which cannot be accomplished within political constraints. I am not interested in cover-ups and further hypocrisy, but in changing the real dynamics between Muslims and America. This must be self-driven.
So these are more in the way of notes to self than some grand production investing great hopes in the power of speech to alter reality. A speech addressing the conflict between the Muslim world and America would have the wrong premise. There is no conflict between the two sides. There are only bad policies, bad internal politics, bad compulsions of empire, and these have nothing to do with the Muslim world. It is our internal predicament, demanding little input from the Muslim world, and little need to convey our plans prospectively.
My advisers want me to harp on the common need to root out violent extremists. To focus on terrorists -- even if I don't use the word itself -- is like focusing on drug-dealers. It is not a real political problem, it is a made-up problem. If there is violent extremism, it only means that the political system is not flexible enough to address legitimate demands (just as drug-dealers exist to supply real needs, as do prostitutes). Some might say, what about Muslim terrorists who breed in places like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and then wish to strike the American heartland? Is it not my duty as Commander-in-Chief to secure the American people's safety? My answer is that there is no such thing as violence without cause. Instead of lecturing Muslims about the evils of violent extremism, let me instruct myself on the causes. And there are plenty.
They want me to go to Egypt. In the 1950s, Egypt, like much of the Muslim world, was into socialism. Secularism was the coin of the day. That didn't work for America during the cold war. We brought in tyrannous regimes, like Egypt's and Pakistan's, to act as bulwarks against communism. Now we lament the rise of religious extremism. Who has propped up Egypt's dictator for thirty years? Isn't this exactly the period when modern Islamic terrorism, directed outward to Western countries, has been on the rise? Why should I go and speak as a humble supplicant before Hosni Mobarak, when he is the very reason (with America's continued financial support) that legitimate political desires get sidetracked into grotesque forms? Why should I scrape and bow before the King of Saudi Arabia, whose very existence, with our full support, is the reason why Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for extremism? What would be the point of lecturing the Muslim world on the need for democracy and human rights, when American power keeps in place the dictators who make freedom impossible? The only answer is to disengage from these monstrous entanglements.
They want me to soften my approach by speaking of a common cultural legacy, emphasizing the shared bonds of monotheistic religion. I may be a Christian, but it is not my role as president to go around other countries advertising that fact. Would Jefferson have done so? Ours is a secular republic, and we do not speak patronizingly to other cultures about ancient beliefs. Ours is a nation founded on modernity. I have no desire to speak down to Muslims by praising them for their medieval accomplishments in algebra, calligraphy, architecture, and whatever other past glories make them feel good about themselves. Let's move boldly into the future, without recourse to religious mumbo-jumbo. Wouldn't it be odd for me to speak against pernicious forms of religion, while organizing my speech around the forms of religion I personally prefer? Whether or not Muslim women wear hijab, what concern is that of an American president? Whether Muslims have a Shi'ite-Sunni schism -- which, incidentally, we have done our best to inflame in Iraq, Pakistan, and other places -- is none of our concern. The Muslim world must solve its own problems, which can only happen once they reach certain thresholds of economic development. I shouldn't be talking about humanitarian aid. Muslims are not begging for such help. They only seek dignity. And it would be a slap in the face to give a patronizing speech about how they ought to go about seeking dignity.
On other issues my advisors want me to talk about, I take a similar skeptic's approach. I cannot speak credibly of Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions, while hoarding the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. If I say my aim is to dismantle our own nuclear weaponry, who would take me seriously? On Guantanamo, torture, and Abu Ghraib, I do not need to repeat the Bush administration canard that "we do not torture." I am not some monarch with the power to forbid torture. What we must do is follow the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties, which means prosecuting the violators to the full extent of the law. Anything less than that gives the lie to the claim that we do not torture. I don't need to come up with newfangled innovations, such as revived military commissions, to work around the rule of law. As for Iraq, we need to leave immediately -- not 2012 or some indeterminate date, when the military feels it's advantageous to do so. I also don't believe Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Mullah Omar offered to extradite Osama bin Laden, an offer we refused to entertain. We do not invade and occupy a country because a terrorist happens to live there. I don't need to make a speech about the suffering people of Afghanistan. I need to make sure we leave Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke's crowd would want me to instigate division in that country, by embarking on a campaign of bombing against the so-called Taliban in the frontier province. This will only breed more extremism. During our decade-long support for Pervez Musharraf, religious violence became a serious issue for Pakistan for the first time in its history. We do not need to do more of the same. And finally, about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Muslim world has heard it all from us. If I tried hard, I could hardly sound better than Carter. The United States should not give Israel special treatment over any other country in the world. We leave Israel and Palestine to sort out their problem for themselves. This would be the hardest nut to crack, since Israel is America's military arm in the Middle East. Yet if I accept that Americans are ready to abide by international law, and scale back the ambitions of empire, then disengagement from Israel falls into place.
In short, a speech, on any of the above points, cannot fail to be patronizing and hypocritical, not to mention irrelevant. Again, there is no conflict between the Muslim world and America. If I had shuttered Guantanamo immediately, subjected officials within my country to domestic and international law on torture, I wouldn't need to give a speech about how great America is on human rights. If I had left Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, if I had told Israel that we would mind our own business henceforth, I wouldn't need to give a speech further confusing the issues. My advisers waste my time. I am not a charismatic speech-maker. I am a public servant grievously concerned about the forms of illegality that have crept into every level of American government. I see no other way but to accept the United States as one among many nations equally subject to the rule of law -- and make no speeches about it.