OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obama to placate extremist jihadists
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Sprangers:
- As general election approaches, Obama faces uphill battle (February 28, 2008)
- Debate victory a credit to issues (February 14, 2008)
- U.S. foreign policy promises dependent on advisers (January 31, 2008)
- Free trade debate needs rethinking (December 13, 2007)
- Campaigns fail country, voters (November 30, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Register to vote ... early and often (March 1, 2004)
- Womens issues at forefront (November 7, 2006)
- Election Day merits campus attention (November 6, 2006)
- GOP urges campus to cast educated ballots (October 24, 2006)
- French election may improve relations with U.S. (April 26, 2007)
by John Sprangers
Thursday, March 13, 2008
In American presidential campaigns “votes” are important. They reemerge every election cycle to dominate the public discussion, guide the campaigns and, oftentimes, decide the outcome. For example, you have the black vote, the woman vote, the union vote, the terrorist vote…
Wait a minute — the terrorist vote?
That’s right — if you’ve recently been tuning out election chatter, you may not realize that the presidential preference of our enemies has become a topic of debate. And although al Qaeda hasn’t won suffrage yet, its members’ hypothetical vote is important.
Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, a leading commentator on terrorist voting patterns, suggested that Senator Barack Obama is the current presidential favorite among violent jihadists. He recently expressed his belief that Mr. Obama’s strength of support among that constituency is so strong that jihadists would be “dancing in the streets” upon an Obama victory in November. Mr. King cited Mr. Obama’s Iraq policy, his familial connection to Islam and his Islamic middle name as the issues and policies most attractive to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.
Mr. King’s attempt to contribute intelligently to our political discourse was, oddly, met with scorn — Mr. Obama lashed out at him, Senator John McCain distanced himself from him, and the media portrayed him as a quaint but scary bigot. But I think Mr. King was right — the presumptive preference of Islamist terrorists for Mr. Obama should influence our own votes this fall.
While part of Mr. King’s rationale is that, because of Mr. Obama’s proposed Iraq withdrawal, terrorists in that country would feel safer in an Obama presidency, Mr. King is otherwise merely intimating that Mr. Obama is a more attractive candidate to the Muslim world in general. More precisely, in his statements last week Mr. King suggested that Muslims, including the infinitesimally small percentage of them who happen to be Islamist terrorists, feel they have more in common with Mr. Obama than with our more traditional offerings.
Where Mr. King and I differ is how the election of a president looked upon favorably in the Middle East or the Hindu Kush would affect our fortunes in the War on Terror. Mr. King would presumably think it a negative development, but I believe it is very much in our interest.
Islamist terror and public sentiment in the Muslim world regarding the West are certainly not synonymou, but are undeniably interconnected. As we’ve seen, any country with a Muslim population can spawn Islamist terrorists — Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, even the United States. Whenever and wherever terrorist organizations successfully foster hatred by Muslims toward the West, and America in particular, the recruits will come.
Terrorist groups such as al Qaeda breed hatred and attract followers by associating America and her allies with a long history of imperialism in primarily Muslim lands by white Christian Westerners — from the Crusades to the French invasion of Algeria and more. Their movement thrives on dualism, ignoring the religious and ethnic diversity of today’s Western countries to portray the West as opposite of the East.
The terrorists’ task of convincing Muslims that America remains an imperialist nation is made much easier when her president, in identity, conduct and policy, is the very personification of what imperialism has meant to Muslims. In President George Bush, al Qaeda and its ilk have been afforded the perfect nemesis: a white and ostentatious Christian who advocates “crusades” and counts two Muslim countries among his “Axis of Evil” (one of which he has invaded and occupied with the goal of transforming the Middle East). It shouldn’t come as a surprise that al Qaeda videos cite President Bush individually as an enemy or that he’s burned in effigy in anti-America protests worldwide. Given history, the guy is easy to hate.
So what would happen if we elected a president who is not as easily associated with that history? Mr. Obama is a young man of color with one Muslim name, a man quiet in his Christianity but loud about the need for a new direction in American foreign relations. And he wants to end America’s most blatantly imperialistic operation in recent memory. What would this do to terrorist recruitment efforts? Would al Qaeda have a more difficult time justifying attacks on the country of its favorite candidate?
Such things are impossible to know considering the myriad other factors, especially the Arab-Israeli situation that contributes to Islamism. But it’s certainly possible, maybe even probable, that a President Obama would take some wind out of the sails of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Voting for Mr. Obama on those grounds wouldn’t be surrender; any reduction of the terrorist threat should be viewed as a subversive offensive and a victory. More importantly, it would advance the foremost American interest — the safety of United States citizens.
So stop laughing at him — Representative King was right. We should consider which candidate would be most favorable to Muslims worldwide, including terrorists. We shouldn’t, however, necessarily come to his conclusions about the implications of that support.
If Mr. Obama wins in November — and true to Mr. King’s prediction, al Qaeda is dancing in the streets — I say all the better. For Barack Obama, you may remember, has also vowed to intervene in Pakistan, al Qaeda’s traditional stronghold. And terrorists dancing in the streets are much easier to hit with smart bombs than are terrorists hiding in caves.
John Sprangers (sprangers@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:51am):
Some good points but two comments:
1)Mr. King's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee and thus its clear he was motivated by casting him negatively in order to make McCain look better.
2)One point that should have been brought up. Probably the most important reason that Muslims, and jihadists especially, favor Obama is simple: he is, of the three Presidential candidates, the least fervent supporter of Israel. While he does support them, as all American politicians rightfully do (for strategic reasons), it certainly is not with the passion that the Clinton family or McCain does.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:16am):
"As weâve seen, any country with a Muslim population can spawn Islamist terrorists â Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, even the United States."
Actually, if you do a little homework, you'll see that one of those countries stands out above all others:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:56am):
Wow, now I have to consider what jihadists think when I cast my vote in November? Thanks for keeping me up on the jihadists' opinion polls; however, this is likely to change once the nominees have a chance to present the facts to the hostiles against us.
I look forward to your next article on who Russia favors, who China favors, and who Raul Castro favors.
It makes you wonder why we just don't open this election up to the entire population of Earth.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:07am):
Right on 8:56! Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks of us, most of all those presenting the greatest security threat? I mean, it's not like our recent foreign policies have gotten us into trouble or anything.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:09am):
Is this a joke? If not, it's probably the most insipid piece I've ever read. John, you've got a great journalistic career ahead of you. The Mt. Horeb Times will undoubtedly be giving you a call any day now.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:11am):
Since when is a cracker from Iowa a reliable guide to which candidate Muslims would favor?
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:57am):
Obama has not told us if he has ever studied the Koran or if he went to Friday prayers? There is lots he is not telling us and why is not the news media asking. As for Mr. king you can dissmiss him and call him names but many many Americans are saying the same things DEAL with it
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 10:03am):
ALL our enemies favor Obama because they believe that they will be able to take advantage of his inexperience and his naive approach to foreign policy.
To his credit Obama has gotten many folks excited with his call for change. But when it comes to formulating and conducting foreign policy in a dangerously volatile, terror-threatened world, electing a freshman senator with but a fleeting familiarity with international and security affairs is simply not an option.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:31am):
WHO CARES if Obama ever studied the Koran? I'd actually hope that any president engaging with Islamic countries would make the effort to understand the people they're declaring war on or are openly hostile against. And for the 75% of students who weren't eligible to vote last election, fyi, this same "who would the terrorists vote for?" propagandizing came up in 2004.
It looks like Osama bin Laden will be the P. Diddy of 2008 though.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:55am):
It will be interesting to see what kind of foreign policy Obama develops, especially when you consider that MOST OF HIS ADVISORS WORKED IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 12:21pm):
you can't placate extremist jihadists...that's why they ARE extremist jihadists.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 12:31pm):
* Ramadan Adassi, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades terror group in the West Bank's Anskar refugee camp, pointed to Obama's rise to stardom as "an important success. He won popularity in spite of the Zionists and the conservatives."
* Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained Democrat candidates' anti-war positions "prove that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."
* Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
* "As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told me for my book. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
* Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, was more direct: the policy of withdrawal, he stated, "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 2:59pm):
I've read the Koran. Does that make me a terrorist?
UW-History Department ... breeding terrorists since 1848.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:53pm):
Enough with the World Net Daily quotes copy and pasted from their website! You even forgot to remove the 'for my book' from your fourth quote...guess your both fear-mongering AND lazy
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:24pm):
no, but having read the quran, you should know that it evokes terrorism...and fear mongering isn't only with terror...it's global warming, class warfare, abortion, HIV, heath care, ssi, and everything else that's political.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:15pm):
Obama's middle name is not Muslim, it's an Arabic name. Some Christian Arabs have the same name. Not all Arabs are Muslim and the vast majority of Muslims around the world are not Arabs.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 1:24am):
I like how Obama detractors constantly use "Hussein." It's like if anonymous commenters here referred to Sprangers by his middle name. Anything you can use to fear-monger, I guess.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 8:49am):
Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.
=====
Video: Obama's Pastor, "God Damn AmeriKKKa"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk
The man Barack Obama calls his spiritual adviser, who is credited for giving him the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope, and who married Obama and his wife and baptized their two daughters, is an America-hating racist who uses exactly the same type of hate speech as disgraced Wisconsin professor Ward Churchill-- and (now) Oregon's Professor Mohamed.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 8:52am):
Sorry buttercups, but any post-1941 Presidential candidate found posing in (heaven forfend) Shinto garb would be equally (and properly) scrutinized. Why should post-9/11 Americans apply a different standard for exquisitely sensitive Obama-philes?
America is (afterall) at war with Islamo-fascist terrorists. The FACT that Obama has familial/tribal ties with Muslim supremacists in Kenya's killing fields (see Obama's personal visit and endorsement of his mass murdering cousin Odinga) seems entirely relevant to the electoral discussion.
If Leftists are so proud of Obama's East African Muslim heritage, why do they object to other folks examining these connections?
The Kenya Connection
http://www.nysun.com/article/69273
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 11:29am):
sprangers' middle name is barrow, fyi.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 12:29pm):
Oh, I see.
You won't print anything about Obama's preacher?
Liberal media blackout!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
