But Iraqpundit — who lives there — says Obama’s passivity has turned a US victory into defeat.

…When the U.S. watches as Iran steals the election from the people of Iraq and withdraws its troops and forgets about the plight of the people, Bin Laden and Zawahiri celebrate. Why? Because this U.S. move will damage whatever positive accomplishments were made over the past few years. This will result in a victory for the radicals. Al-Qaeda knows how to turn that anger into spreading their operations in the region.

The Iraqis were skeptical at first but gave the U.S. a chance. People were skeptical because the U.S. had urged the Iraqis to rise up in 1991 against Saddam; the people did. But when Saddam attacked the uprising, the U.S. sat back and watched. From here it looks as though history is about to repeat itself.

When the U.S. removed Saddam, the Iraqis welcomed the change. When the U.S. brought democracy and asked the people to vote, do their part to bring aobut positive change, the Iraqis did. But when the Iraqis gave the secular candidate the most seats inparliament, Iran kicked into high gear. The U.S. is doing nothing.

It’s already happening. People in the streets are saying the U.S. doesn’t care what happens here. They say the word of the Americans means nothing. They cannot be trusted. All that plays directly into Zawahiri’s message. He and Bin Laden have been saying the Americans are not to be trusted, so now they can say I told you so. That is serious damage. and it is probably irreversible. Again, al-Qaeda has it figured out. But I don’t know whether the White House has.

How depressing. And how tragic for the Iraqis.

Europe’s disappointment with Persident Barack Obama’s presidency was laid bare Thursday as the EU’s most senior figure called for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations.

The President of the European Commission said the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a “missed opportunity” for Europe.

José Manuel Barroso said the EU-U.S. relationship was not living up to its potential. The criticism follows a series of fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.

The feelings of a deepening rift are mutual. Senior U.S. figures said Obama could never live up to Europe’s sky-high expectations.

Barroso revealed his frustrations with Washington during a wideranging interview in which he also admitted that the euro had acted like a “sleeping pill,” luring some countries to the edge of economic disaster with an “illusion of prosperity.”

Euro: opiate of the people.

Oh God. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse. I just found out the Obama administration recently decided to drop references to Islamic radicalism. I’m not sure I understand the reason behind the decision, but I can only guess that it’s perhaps to avoid upsetting the militants.

Of course that’s not how the administration describes the logic. “President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy’s propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.”

How a normal Muslim would be offended by a reference to radicals who target civilians is beyond me. Any self-respecting Muslim knows that the vermin who go around killing in the name of Islam and get support from radical religious leaders are deserving of an accurate depiction. That is, let’s call them what they are: radical, militant, extremist, violent Muslims. Why not refer to them in honest terms? Is everyone that afraid of them? I know I am, but the mighty White House should not be.

A White House official explained that by “describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie — propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism — that the United States is somehow at war against Islam.” All he has to do is say the U.S. is at war with radical Islam. I think the White House might be surprised to learn that most normal Muslims would agree that it would be a noble war to fight.

The problem when people prettify violent extremists who kill innocents in the name of relgion is they talk down to ordinary Muslims. Ordinary Muslims have plenty to think about without feeling belittled by supposed experts..

Take this story from the NYT about jihadists marrying widows. This irritating quote comes from Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism expert at the New America Foundation. “The fatwa, he says, may simply be a practical way of directing dwindling assets to perhaps thousands of impoverished widows and orphans.” Does the guy really believe the jihadists want to help anyone? They want to increase their numbers. That’s all.

The expert claims: “Although we tend to focus on their ability to generate violence,” what?!! He continues, “accounting and other documents from the group suggest that they spend much of their time and energy providing money and other support to the families of ‘martyrs.’ The exhortation to marry widows is likely an attempt to provide for the families of ‘martyrs’ at a time when the organization as a whole has limited resources.” What nonsense!

Someone tell President Obama that he and his administration are doing Muslims no favours when they avoid describing the criminals precisely. President Obama should not listen to Osama Bin Laden when he argues that the U.S. is a target because of its war against Islam. Bin Laden said he and his thugs don’t target Sweden. Maybe not, but they do target Uganda. Do innocent Ugandans watching a soccer game harm Muslims?

President Obama should fire his advisers on Islam. They should be replaced by people who respect their fellow man. It doesn’t matter what religion the advisers are, as long as they don’t talk down to Muslims by dancing around an obvious issue. That approach would be much more productive. The radicals threaten the lives of ordinary Muslims as well as those of non-Muslims. Obama would help everyone if he were to address the matter honestly. If we all just close our eyes, the radical Islamists will not go away.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,” Obama said.

Well that changes everything.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA’s orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeerathat strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

“When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” Bolden said in the interview.

The NASA administrator was in the Middle East last month marking the one-year anniversary since Obama delivered an address to Muslim nations in Cairo. Bolden spoke in June at the American University in Cairo — in his interview with Al Jazeera, he described space travel as an international collaboration of which Muslim nations must be a part.

The best way for Muslim nations to “feel good” about their contributions to science is to make some this century.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion.” Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, “There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don’t know how to play that game.”

And…

The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America’s economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.

Which recalls the satirical  slogan: “Always remember you are unique. Just like everyone else.”

Alas, Obama’s failure to recognize the unique position of the US in world affairs puts everyone at risk.

Publisher Mort Zuckerman, once an Obama supporter, has finally realized what the rest of us knew two years ago.

….The reviews of Obama’s performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America’s role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world’s leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America’s foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one’s own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the “special relationship” with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama’s visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president’s poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama’s policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama’s severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things “must be done” and “should be done” and that “it is time” to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is “the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy.” Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an “NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches.” In other words, he talks the talk but doesn’t know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.

VDH: This a confusing period. There’s a lot of irony. Look back at the period when Europe had it both ways, when we defended them while they mouthed off, when they undermined us and Bush pushed back.

Now compare that to what Obama is doing. He’s almost smiling while selling out Europe. He’s trying to become even more left than they are on foreign policy. On one hand, the Europeans are getting what they deserve, but they are Westerners, they are a positive force in the world, and what we’re doing is dangerous.

MJT: It seems to unnerve the Europeans now that Obama is to their left.

VDH: It does.

MJT: They seem uncomfortable being to the right of the United States in some ways.

VDH: I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama’s election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, “We are Obama. You can’t be Obama.”

Everybody looked at him. And I said, “What do you mean?”

He said, “There’s only room for one Obama.”

I said, “So we’re supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?”

And he said, “Right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our public, which is lunatic. You don’t really believe there’s going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?”

That’s what he said. I was surprised at his candor. And it’s worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they’re getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it’s tragic. And it’s dangerous. We shouldn’t be doing this.

…Even our domestic policies can affect foreign leaders, as Ronald Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controllers’ strike impressed the Russians with what kind of man they were going to have to deal with, as former Soviet officials said publicly many years later.

By the same token, domestic bungling by Barack Obama sends a dangerous signal to countries hostile to us, in addition to the signal sent by his displays of amateurism on the world stage.

President Obama had barely settled into the White House before he began demonstrating his willingness to sell out this country’s friends to appease our enemies. His trip to Moscow to try to make a deal with the Russians, based on reneging on the pre-existing American commitment to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe, was the kind of short-sighted betrayal whose consequences can come back to haunt a nation for years.

Obama spoke grandly about “pressing the reset button” on international relations, as if all the international commitments of the past were his to disregard.

But if no American commitment can be depended upon beyond a current administration, then any nation that allies itself with us is jeopardizing its own national security, because dangers in the international jungle last longer than 4 years or even 8 years.

We are already seeing the consequences. Even Turkey— formally a NATO ally— is cozying up to Iran, now that it is painfully clear that Obama is not going to do anything that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear.

If leaders of other nations can’t depend on the United States, then they need to make the best deal they can with our enemies. They understand that preserving their nation’s security is a leader’s top priority, even if Barack Obama doesn’t.

CAIRO , Egypt_A year ago Friday, President Barack Obama stood in Cairo and vowed “a new beginning” in a speech about how he’d change U.S. relations with the Muslim world. Egyptian vendors sold T-shirts portraying Obama in King Tut regalia, and Muslims throughout the region thrilled at his middle name: Hussein.

Well at least he brought the shirt sellers some business.

Now, many Muslims in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East say they’re dismayed that the promise of the speech has fizzled into U.S. policy-as-usual toward the region: civilian deaths in Afghanistan , an unstable Iraq , no pressure for reforms on Washington -friendly autocrats, no resolution for Guantanamo prisoners and no end in sight for the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The Taliban inflicts intentional civilian deaths in Afghanistan. We don’t.

The instability of Iraq is not Obama’s doing, nor Bush’s. It’s the Iraqi people.

As for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only resolution the Muslim world wants is death to Israel.

Israel’s deadly raid in international waters on an aid flotilla en route to break the siege on Gaza – and Obama’s tepid response, in comparison to the condemnation of other world leaders – cemented perceptions for many of unconditional U.S. support for Israel .

Obama was right.

Some Arab commentators and bloggers said Obama no longer deserves his Nobel Peace Prize.

“His speech at Cairo University was wonderful and raised hopes that America was on a real path to changing its policies,” said Hassan Nafaa , a political science professor at Cairo University , where Obama spoke. “But Obama’s practices afterwards guaranteed that he is weaker than he seemed during his speech.”

Ah, they’re catching on.