By Daniel Dessinger
November 5, 2008
It’s safe to say that in this neck of the world, there are two predominant ideals regarding the anti-American terrorist response to United States Presidential Election. This is an open thread, so we’ll state the two opposing views and allow you to discuss.
View #1: Anti-American Sentiment Will Lessen As a Direct Result of Obama’s Election
Many people hold Republicans and, more specifically, President George W. Bush, responsible for the militant anti-American sentiment around the world. Those holding this view believe that America has now proven it’s true heart by electing Barack Obama, and that the rest of the world will take note and not hold the entire country responsible for past presidential “atrocities.”
Perhaps terrorists, Palestinians, and countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others will see the United States differently now that George W. Bush and his worldview are being removed from office. If so, a new era of peaceful negotiations and resolutions to conflicts could begin. Or at the very least, these sovereign nations will not pursue terrorist action because they expect to be respected as sovereign nations and left alone by the previous “world police”.
View #2: Electing Obama Has Opened the Floodgates for Terrorism Against American Interests
According to this view, Republican military strength was necessary to express and demonstrate American strength to terrorist factions and dictatorships around the globe. Now that the United States has elected a leader who prefers talks to a show of military force, the impact upon groups most likely to plan a terrorist or military strike is minimal. These groups have a blood feud with the United States and its ideals, and will not be deterred by a Democratic Obama.
In fact, Obama represents weakness. His expressed unwillingness to make difficult preemptive military decisions makes his presidency a prime target for terrorist activity. According to this view, we can expect to see a surge of military/terrorist moves during Obama’s first term. They expect Obama will waste too much time trying to negotiate with terrorist/military leaders while they are free to conduct black ops and behind the scenes preparations for attacks against our nation.
Now it’s your turn to weigh in.
What affect will Obama’s presidency have on anti-American sentiment among terrorist and dictatorial military factions? Keep in mind, we’re not talking the world at large – only those who would consider doing harm against our citizens, our interests, and our nation.
[poll id="15"]
© 2008 – 2010, Daniel Dessinger. All rights reserved.
Similar Posts:
- Obama Will Be the End of Us All
- That’s No Way to Treat a Lady!
- The Media’s Political Double Standard
- Change Has Come to the White House
- Obama: Maybe He Can
It will be combination of both. There are some dictators and those bent on evil that may view the election of Obama as an opportunity to attack America thinking that his response will be less then that of Bush or McCain. While Joe “The Vice President” may not have said it well at the time, I agree that they will be making a mistake.
On the other hand, Obama will be better at negotiation, the fact is not everything is black and white. People who hate America sometimes have a valid reason to do so; if we can remove that reason then it is possible to have peace. We need to go back to Teddy Roosevelt diplomacy, speaking softly but still carrying a big stick.
I believe that the extremists have been waiting and praying for this moment so that they can destroy America. Their goal is to take over the world and destroy the “infidels.” Anyone who thinks they can be talked out of their agenda is naive. The enemy will always strike when we let down our guard.
For the record, if you’ve thought of a 3rd and 4th options, we’d love to hear from you as well.
I’d like to welcome our readers from Turkey, Brazil, China, India, Germany, and Russia who are reading this post but haven’t commented yet. We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please comment.
I also think it will be a little of both weakness/opportunity…Some will think we will be easy targets and some will think this is an opportunity to find out more info on us as now Obama most likely will be willing to sit down with these countries that don’t agree with some of our views…
I think the terrorists will wait for some signals from Obama. I do not think they will act against the US until Obama establishes his policy towards Muslims and Muslim nations.
You have to think of things from their perspective. They are not single mindedly focused on the US. They also have a problem with the leaders of their own nations. Presumably, if Obama establishes policy that is less harmful to Muslims living in Muslim nations, the terrorists will redirect their priorities to their own corrupt leaders and reward a policy that honors the integrity of Muslims.
I don’t think that anyone, no matter their party, no matter their policies or their angles, can talk anyone out of hating America or trying to do something about that hatred. Their agenda is fueled by a passionate hatred I cannot even begin to comprehend, and there is no logic there, therefore no reason.
I also don’t think that we should live in a constant culture of fear–fear that the terrorists want us to feel and fear that is stirred up by those who want us to turn against a policy of change. My greatest wish is that Obama will do exactly as he has promised in regards to foreign policy. America has become a big red button pushing joke, and it has gotten us nowhere.
Colin Powell said this morning in an interview that he does not believe the people who claim they will feel less safe with Obama as President are right. Powell said that he has the same vested interest that John McCain, George W. Bush, or any other American leader has in keeping the American people safe, and I agree. Just because he’s willing to try a little diplomacy before he presses that big button, or before he sends our men and women into a battlefield, doesn’t mean he is weak. He’s not going to roll over for people who want to hurt us. I do not doubt that when action is required, when there is a substantive threat, Obama will recognize when diplomacy will work and when action will have to take precedence.
I am proud to have voted someone into office that could change the face of America, not just here but everywhere. We are hardly the strong power of leadership that we once were, and I look forward to my country getting back to that level again, hopefully in my lifetime.
This topic is very timely for me. I’ve been watching back to back to back to back seasons of 24, where Jack Bauer and various fictional US Presidents deal with terrorist threats of all kinds.
In these shows, each President supposedly upholds the “United States does NOT negotiate with terrorists” stance in public, but cowers to the whims of the madman in private. In those fictional scenarios, the ends always justifies the means, so principles pretty much fly out the window.
I’m very curious to see how Obama handles foreign relations, and what kind of stance he will at least publicly take with terrorism and perceived threats against national security or interests.
I’m obviously not qualified to speak to what extremists/terrorist think or believe. But perhaps at best we can expect Obama’s leadership to parse former terrorist threats into two camps:
First might be the group who hated Bush, but now feel more respected and therefore turn their attention elsewhere.
Second might be those with a grudge: those who’ve lost friends, family, and loved ones in previous military conflicts. Blood feuds aren’t likely to stop no matter who is President… at least that’s my guess.
This is a bit of a conundrum. Anti-American sentiments are not relegated to terrorists. It has been spreading, slowly, from France in the years after WWII.
With WWII being completed the U.S. played a major part in the financing and rebuilding of France. And then we played there “majorly” as if it were the new playground we had built. We did this without much regard of the French culture, and as a result anti-American sentiments slowly but steadily arose to the point it becomes a by-line joke in National Lampoons “European Vacation” with Chevy Chase.
The tie-in around the world, is the perceived philosophy of our actions. We are seen as a country that simply does what it wants, frequently without regard for our global neighbors. That may not be simply a Republican thing, but it is arguable that they have been worse at it. Now, it is also argued that, being the most powerful country, we have protected others (or tried to) and therefore have an “excuse” to “jump to the front of the line” or do what we want when most other countries are bound by a more extensive international decorum.
In interviews in Spain, Italy, South America, etc… we were described as a disrespectful people–of our elderly, our sick, our neighbors etc… That our priorities were wrong with healthcare and education and a visible disdain was the result. Despite our tremendous power.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is about chaos interruption, and skewed religious beliefs resulting statement actions.
Whereas I am inclined to think that the steady, methodical approach and controlled demeanor we have seen from Obama will continue in his interaction with our global neighbors, probably resulting over time in less anti-American sentiment; I’m not sure if it will lessen terrorism bent on U.S. disruption. Because they are about statement actions, terrorists will strive to make the largest statements when possible.
America is an advanced target. Whereas part of the activity, on our soil which we have seen, has been reprisal for our actions abroad (arguable) and may lessen *some*, we are still seen as the place to make the biggest statement. “Attack the infidel power!” I’m not convinced we’re much more, or less, of a target due to an immanent change in leadership and subsequently global decorum and perception. Their actions can’t be just about targeting strength–China is arguably stronger in military might. But they tend to keep to themselves relative to our activity abroad. Perhaps they too will become more of a target. They have had some small activity, in 1992, and a “foiled plot” in Beijing in 2009. Other than some minor Seperatist Muslim activity, they’re okay.
Simply put, I believe *general* anti-American sentiments will lessen, but I am inclined to think that any planned path of terrorist interruptions will continue more or less as they have; even with this new President-Elect. Whether or not they will step things up because Obama is a Democrat which some perceive as militarily flacid, who can know? I *do* think they see him differently than many Americans do. I think they seem him as shrewd. Intellegent. Controlled. Perhaps even unpredicable. That may not equate to a desired conflict.
I think based on what Obama’s public statements have been about military and the complete lack of support/respect for what the Bush administration has done as far as doing what they felt was right to fight against terrorism *not saying they always made the right decisions* is like he is setting a signal fire saying, “I’M A PUSSY!” I don’t think there will be any fear of retribution of people who want to do things that will harm our country.
But then again, his being elected will increase our political standing/respect from the progressive nations…
It’s a waiting game, but I for one don’t have much faith in Obama keeping us safe. I’m just glad I don’t live in NYC or LA!
With regards to terrorism and Obama’s election, there isn’t any reason why they would care one way or another. Obama will be seen as the new leader of “the great satan” and it is likely that some type of coordinated exercise will occur to test his, or any new president’s, mettle.
The first WTC attack came just over a month after Clinton’s inauguration. The second attacks within the first year of the Bush presidency. Obama has described himself repeatedly as “a friend to Israel”, a Christian; which if you’re in the terror business translates roughly to “that’s not change, that’s more of the same.”
As I said above, any new president is likely to be tested by Al Qaeda. Terrorists aren’t fighting for America to have a black president. Terrorists are fighting for a Global Muslim Theocracy.
My humble musical letter to president Obama:
http://www.writinghannah.blogspot.com
Best,
Hannah
I don’t believe we can predict the actions of terrorists. There is no reason to believe that who our president is will impact their world view or actions. Multiple studies have shown that terrorists’ behaviors do not conform to normal cost-benefit explanations. See, for example, this article: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/the_seven_habit.html which
This article “Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists” explains:
Terrorists (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don’t compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved.
It then puts forward that “People turn to terrorism for social solidarity[ ...] people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.”
The logical extension of all of this is that socially marginalized communities that turn to terrorist organizations for social cohesion should not be impacted by the US executive branch. Counterterrorism strategies will need to focus on strategies designed to weaken social bonds w/in terrorist organizations.. “Driving a wedge between group members”
Finally, I don’t think sovereign nations such as Iran, Syria, & Korea (mentioned in the post) are relevant to this conversation as much as the marginalized individuals that may inhabit them. It is not right to label these countries as terrorist nations. These kinds of generalizations are dangerous.
@Jess: Well said!
Unfortunately, we are quite good at predicting the actions of terrorists. That is why we reelected George Bush in 2004. Obama has no spine, and our enemies know it. As a Democrat, he will strip our military of its funding, gut the department of homeland security so he can pursue his solcialist policies.
Obama believes he can charm our enemies with just another speech (unbelievable ego). We are going to be hit, and we are going to be hit hard, and it will be within the first year of his presidency. I do hope Obama will be in the white house when terroists detonate a nuclear device in one of Washington’s suburbs.
Tactics of terrorists sects like the Taliban are to erratic and counterintuitive to predict. No matter who was elected, terrorism would not change very much. The only difference is how we deal with terrorists.
Sovereign nations on the other hand, will respond to a new President. Our allies will be energized by Obama’s presidency, where enemies of the Nation like Iran and Nations that are dangerously close to dictatorship like Russia will use this opportunity to test Obama, but not with direct and large-scale attacks on the States, but by threatening our allies and with insincere attacks against the us. But I am confident that with Obama’s natural leadership, and Biden’s years of experience in foreign policy, we will not only overcome aggression, but come out of it with higher standing and more respect.
@Terry, you said “Unfortunately, we are quite good at predicting the actions of terrorists”
If that were the case, then why were we not able to predict & prevent 911?. Most people agree terrorists do not conform to normal cost-benefit actions or predictable behavior.
The reality is that after 9-11 the entire nation and much of the world rallied behind George Bush in his “War on Terror”. He had the highest presidential approval rating in history. But he squandered good will and trust nationally and internationally, with deceptive and misleading justifications (WMDs, etc) and his dogged pursuit of unilateral action in Iraq. Now we have succeeded only in dividing our allies and uniting our enemies, and most experts agree (unless you ask Hannity & the likes) that we are no safer (if not less safe) now than ever, and certainly more alone and less powerful in the global arena.
I believe – like Colorado says – nations do follow these paradigms, and under the leadership of Obama I hope we can expect to see positive results for how we are perceived internationally.. So while we may be no safer from the unpredictable and irrational actions of terrorists, at least we may regain some of the trust and respect we’ve pilfered at home and abroad in the last 7 years under Bush.
Now that several days have past since I wrote this article, I’ve had some additional thoughts, one of which pertains to the structure I gave it. Lumping terrorists and sovereign nations into the same category was a Bushian mistake (i.e. “Axis of Evil”). Perhaps I should have addressed these two types of groups separately, perhaps adding a third group containing those nations not symbolizing any type of threat but whose relations with the U.S. have been sorely strained as a result of the past eight years.
I think countries like France will be encouraged. I think it’s very telling that Iran’s leader has extended congratulations to Barack Obama (whether it’s a ploy or not).
We’ve already seen this President-Elect challenged by several sovereign nations. These nations’ statements tell me that they see a marked difference between Obama and Bush, and are willing to test Obama early to better understand the strength of his resolve.
I will be viewing world politics with greater interest for the next few years, hoping to see a miraculous return to greatness in this country in both its internal and external policies.
I would just like to point out to the world that there is more than ONE Terry Goodspeed and we do not endorse the institutionally insane comments left in the previous post. Such posting is a clear indication that someone should consult news sources that don’t involve Rush Limbaugh.
There will be no attacks on U.S. soil untill Obamma gives the order. After all ,he is our enemy`s leader
Some will want to destroy. Doesn’t matter who’s in office… but what I find is that many people gloss over the social impact/change of such an event.
It will take a very long time for race relations to improve in the US. However, something like this advances the conversation and in time things will get better.
Now that word will spread world-wide, and in my very humble opinion, those in the majority (see, not extremist) will eventually lose those moderates who could sway in their direction and see things differently. Give it time!
Those who see Obama as a weakness that opens the terrorist floodgates have been sold-out and ripped-off. Brainwashed by the fear.
I’m politically agnostic.
Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.