One year ago, on the second anniversary of President Obama's historic Cairo University address to the Muslim World, we released the results of our 2011 Arab World polling. The findings were devastating, though not wholly unexpected. What we found was that America's overall favorable ratings across the Arab World were lower in 2011 than they had been in the last year of the Bush Administration.
Domestic opponents of the President rather shamefully leapt for joy, refusing to acknowledge that this collapse of hope for change was in no small measure due to their obstructionism. And they appeared unconcerned with the consequences this loss of trust was having on America's ability to function across the region. More troubling than the precipitous decline in America's standing in the Arab World are the constraints this situation has imposed on the ability of the United States to play a constructive role in regional affairs.
We live in what I call, "The house that Bush built." Both at home and abroad, the impact of the sometimes neglectful and other times reckless policies of the last administration are everywhere in evidence. In the Middle East alone, we witnessed: two failed wars that have been costly beyond measure in lives and treasure; abominable behaviors that sullied our nation's honor (torture, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, "black sites," rendition and more); an emboldened hard-line government in Israel, coupled with the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and a failed peace process; an unleashed and aggressive Iran, flexing its muscles throughout the region; and the spread of destabilizing extremist currents.
This was the mess that greeted President Obama when he entered the White House. And what is most galling is not just the fact that his opponents had supported the policies that landed us in this mess in the first place, but that they have continued to oppose the President's every effort to change direction.
They denounced the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and now advocate an indeterminate involvement in Afghanistan. They have criticized Obama's condemnation of torture, rebuking him for "apologizing for America." They blocked all efforts to close Guantanamo. They have publicly embraced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, siding with the intransigent Israeli leader against their own president while, at the same time, attempting to cut off aid to the Palestinians. They have denounced efforts to negotiate with Iran to rein in its nuclear program, advocating a more muscular approach, while publicly supporting Israel's "right" to bomb that country. And they have refused support for programs the president has proposed that would provide needed capacity-building in Arab countries currently undergoing democratic transformations.
These critics have attempted to take advantage of every calamity in order to find fault with the White House. And they have blocked change when it might have been possible, while forcefully advocating that the current administration pursue the failed policies of the past.
It is possible to see this destructive dynamic at work in the partisan debate that has developed in face of the sustained and horrific violence that is now rocking Syria.
Responding quite soberly to the tragic Syrian situation last week, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, made clear that as horrific as the violence has been, it could get worse. She correctly cautioned against an aggressive military approach to the conflict, laying out in detail her concerns, noting, for example, that "funneling more weapons" into Syria risks creating "an all-out civil war and regional war." Speaking for the Administration, Rice made clear the United States' opposition to Assad's rule, but maintained that she continued to believe that, as difficult as it may be to achieve, a diplomatic and negotiated end to the fighting and to the regime was preferable to the consequences of the regional conflagration that might flow from outside parties pouring more gasoline on the flames.
What the Administration also knows is that given the strategic position of Syria, the fragility of the country and its neighbors, and America's low political standing in the region, U.S. involvement in another ground war in the heart of the Middle East is the last thing we and the region need at this time.
The president's opponents, on the other hand, have sought to take advantage of the public's outrage over the atrocities they see occurring in Syria and to irresponsibly use it for political advantage. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, for example, criticized the White House last week, terming Obama weak and indecisive. No new policy was proposed, just harsh criticism. Romney's supporters went further, with Senator Lindsey Graham advocating U.S.-led aggressive military action, and Senator John McCain calling on the administration to arm the Syrian opposition and set up a "safe haven" within Syria in which the rebels can operate against the regime. How could this be done without international legitimacy? Exactly how might it play out, when we don't know enough about the rebels we would be arming, their capacity to win or govern or their intentions should they win? How would a U.S.-led assault be received by Arabs, who despite their distaste for the Syrian regime are less trusting of America and are still reeling from Iraq and its aftermath? And what would be the effect of all this on vulnerable populations in Syria, or on Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan or Turkey? These questions, as critical as they are to answer, don't matter to critics whose only goals are to attack.
This push for forceful action by the United States may resonate with some and score political points with others. However, in the real world in which we live, these calls for punishing military blows represent nothing more than the same dangerous reckless adventurism that landed us in the mess we're in.
To be fair, the loss of American standing across the region is not just the fault of domestic opponents. In several instances, the Administration hasn't helped itself. Bowing to political pressure, for example, the president's speeches at the United Nations and AIPAC did grave damage to his standing in the Arab World. And while understandably not wanting to engage in an expansion of war into Yemen and Pakistan, the reliance on drone strikes to assassinate suspected targets has radicalized populations in both countries, while delivering a blow to America's claim to uphold international law.
So here we are, three years after the president's remarkable speech in Cairo. The Arab World is undergoing significant and sometimes destabilizing change, and the promised change in U.S. policy is not yet on the horizon. We are now in the midst of an election year, and so we can expect that the partisan attacks will continue and efforts for real change, if it is to come at all, will most likely have to wait until after November.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
I wish HP had an "Arab Voices" section. I can't think of a better time.
are not balanced by full and frank data coming out of Iraq or Libya. If the intention is to save civilian lives, how many must die to do that? We do not send in military might to separate feuding citizens. We deploy a policing force. The UN must demand of all those that truly abhor wanton lawlessness, including Russian, China, and the Arab League, to provide contingents to separate the protagonists. Who must debate and argue out their own peace settlement for themselves, while the world holds a watching brief.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/05/the_brothers_abbas
And people wonder why the Palestinian leadership has no interest in peace. They are getting rich off the status quo. Something Abbas' predecessor Arafat did, and his successor will do.
Like Stteple839, I also don't have much patience with the Arab world.
Fortunately, most in the US support Israel and have now dismissed both the Ron Paul campaign and Occupy.
However on the first occasion Obama had to place actions to his words he squibbed it. The U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process.
Obama himself stated that Israeli settlements in the West bank were an impediment to peace. What made this action stand out was that the U.S. was alone. 14 of the 15 members of the security council voted for the Resolution.
If the U.S is serious about wanting to improve its standing amongst Arabs it needs to show that when the Arabs are in the right and Israel is in the wrong that the U.S. will stand for the right. At the moment the U.S. stands with Israel right or wrong. Like any child that sees the parent favouring another sibling the Arabs are growing up to resent it. Speeches are good Mr Obama but actions speak louder than words.
Barack Obama insulted America's allies and comforted America's enemies through his diplomatic "reset." Jimmy Carter lost Iran, it is said; Obama lost the entire Middle East for America.
There is your problem right there. The believe that the Middle East should be for America.
You have your nation allow other people to have and govern theirs.
If you're concerned about imperialism worry about Iran with proxypolitical parties and Quds forces all over the Middle East.
Mr. Netanjahu's views, as they have been expressed over the years, adhere nearly to the dot to those of the late Mr. Yitzhaq Rabin who has been dubbed worldwide as the prince-of-peace. Both Mr. Rabin and Mr. Netanjahu have been Israeli patriot and peace-loving people, who have viewed pragmatically Israel's national and security needs, but within the framework of international law and bilateral agreements.
1. Jerusalem will remained united under Israel's sovereignty and will also include the suburbs of Giv'at Zeev and Ma'aleh Adumim
2. All major Jewish settlement blocs will be incorporated into sovereign Israel, including Gush Qatif in the Gaza streep
3. The Jordan Valley must be viewed in the widest sense of the term and it too will remain under Israel's rule
4. The future Palestinian Arab state will not be a regular one in that it will be totally demilitarized, its airspace will be controlled by Israel as will its boundaries and all of its border passes: land, sea and air
This contour is probably the most pragmatic one expressed to date, and it very much meet both Israel's national and security vital interests as well as all relevant elements of international law and bilateral agreements in place. Yet, to date, this plus four additional offers and opportunities presented by Israel have been rejected by the PLO and its heads.
Therefore, why, Mr. Zogby, again, accuse Israel of being hard-line...??
Isn't it time for a degree of introspection on the part of the Arabs...??
when we do give back the w bank, and we do have a peace agreement, and when katyushas fall on Tel Aviv - will you send posts condemning them?
Please answer. I work and beg for peace - I am interested to know if this will change your idea of Israel?