Peter Beinart, a professor and one of the leading journalists writing about the Middle East, wrote this piece for The Atlantic.
"At the core of Barack Obama’s terrorism speech on Sunday night lay a contradiction. He gave the address to convince an
increasingly fearful nation that he takes the terrorist threat
seriously. But he doesn’t, at least not in the way his political
opponents do.
"For George W. Bush, the fight against jihadist terrorism was World War III . . . Many Republicans still see the 'war on terror' in these epic terms . . . the United States and 'radical Islam' are virtual equals,
pitted in a 'civilizational conflict' that 'either they win or we win'.
"Obama thinks that’s absurd. . . . he considers
violent jihadism a small, toxic strain within Islamic civilization, not a
civilization itself. . . . While Republicans think ISIS is strong and growing
stronger, Obama thinks it’s weak and growing weaker. . . .
"Obama
also argued that the Islamic State is losing in the Middle East, where
the 'strategy that we are using now—air strikes, special forces, and
working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their
own country' will produce a 'sustainable victory
"The leading GOP
presidential candidates reject that, They believe defeating the Islamic
State requires some dramatic. . . new military and
ideological exertion. Obama, by contrast, thinks America simply needs to
not screw up. That means not being 'drawn once more' into an effort to 'occupy foreign lands,' thus allowing the Islamic State to use 'our
presence to draw new recruits.'
"Obama
believes powerful, structural forces will lead liberal democracies to
triumph over their foes—so long as they don’t do stupid things.
". . . Obama [believes] that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but
occupation. Because Obama, unlike Bush and Rubio, believes the Islamic
State is ideologically weak, he thinks America’s current strategy will
eventually defeat it unless America commits a large occupying force,
which would give the jihadists a massive shot in the arm.
"The
other unforced error America must avoid, according to Obama, is 'letting
this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is
what groups like ISIL want.' Because the GOP candidates see violent
jihadism as a powerful, seductive ideology, they think that many
American Muslims are at risk of becoming terrorists, and thus that the
United States must monitor them more aggressively. Because Obama sees
violent jihadism as ideologically weak and unattractive, he thinks that
few American Muslims will embrace it unless the United States makes them
feel like enemies in their own country—which is exactly what Donald
Trump risks doing.
Obama . . . believes that powerful, structural forces will lead liberal democracies
to triumph over their foes—so long as these democracies don’t do stupid
things like persecuting Muslims at home or invading Muslim lands abroad. His Republican opponents, by contrast, believe that powerful and
sinister enemies are overwhelming America, either overseas (the Rubio
version) or domestically (the Trump version).
"For them, the only
thing more terrifying than 'radical Islam' is the equanimity with which
President Obama meets it. And, to their dismay, that equanimity was very
much on display on Sunday night."
* * *
It's easy for Trump to stand up and shout simplistic answers and boasts of strength to those whose fears he has revved up to fever pitch. What is difficult is for Obama to maintain the calm voice of reason and deeper understanding of complex problems, in the face of demands that he do something different -- especially in the wake of seeming proof that you've let something bad happen that you should have prevented.
The truth is that we cannot prevent something like San Bernadino happening -- not unless we give up our freedom and openness and inclusiveness. Those values make it a risk worth taking. And, as Beinart says, we can reduce that risk by not making American Muslims feel like enemies in their own country.
Ralph
