Vote Barack Hussein Obama?

Current mood:  compromised

Like it or not, America is at war with militant Islam, an off-shoot of the more moderate form of the religion that takes the Koran literally and attempts to impliment Sharia law across the world. Combating this dangerous ideology requires many tactics, most notably militarily (in action, preemptive use and as a deterrence), economically (resolving an addiction to foreign oil, most notably in Saudi Arabia), racially (use of the Patriot Act and careful right infringement as a necessity to prevent catastrophic events), in terms of immigration (closing the border for a number of reasons), and in the propaganda/media arena. It is this latter area that is perhaps the most misunderstood and neglected in America's post-9/11 policy.

Two of George Bush's greatest blunders originated from an inaccurate label to the aforementioned enemy of America. By labeling our adversary "terrorism" due to the chains of political correctness, focus shifted from Afghanstan to Iraq, a nation lead by a secularist, Saddam Hussein. By selecting Iraq, instead of nations lead by an Islamist ideology such as Iran or Pakistan, Bush wasted active collateral he acquired following the events of 9/11. He has dangerously lost any mandated influence following this decision and unfortunately cannot deal with the Iranian threat properly. Michael Smerconish, republican radio broadcaster from Philadelphia who is voting for Obama, comments on this problem:

"Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it's the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and instead invaded Iraq."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/ive-decided_b_135916.html)

By creating turmoil in Iraq, at least for the first few years of the engagement, America has drastically lost the propaganda leg of the war. From Al-Jazeera to NBC to Fox, moderate Muslims around the world have not been thoroughly convinced that their religion has been bastardized.

Perhaps the most important area of this battle is in the strengthening of the moderate Muslim's identity and importance in this struggle. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, writes "Yes, moderate Muslims are weak; I have even called them largely fractured, isolated, intimidated, and ineffectual. But how strong were anti-Nazi Germans in 1943? Just as it took an outside force to destroy the German military might then, it will take one to destroy the radical Islamic one today. It would be foolish to expect moderate Muslims to provide this firepower. Once the war has been won, however, who will extract Muslims from their current predicament but the moderates? Which other candidates can fulfill this role? And, of course, I strenuously disagree with the idea of engaging Islamists."
(http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/12/is-islam-the-problem-is-it-the-solution.html)

The moderate Muslim community has the potential to serve as the most important factor in this war. This is a calling of the highest order, when considering the following:

• 1) Infiltration of Islamist camps world-wide versus penalty of being "found out" by an Islamist (such as be-heading).
• 2) Similarly, using the media as a means to connect to other moderate Muslims around the world, versus the ever present danger of deadly persecution (what Salmon Rushdie dealt with comes to mind).
• 3) The essentials of the Patriotic Act and racial profiling versus the uncomfortable and at times wrong and immoral treatment of any given Muslim.

Unfortunately, political correctness has inhibited any modern leader to call on the moderate Muslim community to do their part in this ongoing battle. John McCain supports a tough stand on Iran and also doesn't fear enemy identification. History tells us that Islamism uses a variety of tactics as well and negotiation with this element is dangerous (Oslo Accords featuring Clinton/Arafat and the increase in Palestinian terrorism, battle tactics by the prophet Mohammed himself to "buy time", etc.) Daniel Pipes supports this view:

"Post-1917 and the Bolshevik Revolution, however, concessions failed to mollify the new kind of ideologically-driven enemy — Hitler in the 1930s, Brezhnev in the 1970s, Arafat and Kim Jong-Il in the 1990s, and now, Khamene'i and Ahmadinejad. These ideologues exploit concessions and deceitfully offer a quid pro quo that they do not intend to fulfill. Harboring aspirations to global hegemony, they cannot be appeased. Concessions to them truly amount to feeding the crocodile."
(http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5912)

Indeed, John McCain let down all conservatives by selecting a women as vice president (you don't seriously think Ahmadinejad would discuss nuclear proliferation in between winks and Alaskan dialect, do you?) Here, I must use sexism to combat sexism; whether it be Rice, Hillary, or Palin, neither side of the Muslim world is ready for a feminized foreign policy. Negotiation with the moderate Muslim community is on the other hand vital.

However, one can only imagine how the Muslim world views the man: A typical, older white male who will undoubtedly continue on the course George Bush started. Will McCain inspire moderate Muslims to act? Certainly not.

Our other choice is equally bleak. Barack Hussein Obama foolishly believes negotiation with this danger would succeed. And if McCain/Bush are politically correct, it goes without saying that a proper labeling of the enemy of civilization would not come from Hussein Obama.

Considering all of the above, the answer to my personal problem of who to vote for lies within a first name and a last name. Moderate Islam needs to be coerced into believing that America, and not Militant Islam, is and should be a beacon for good and freedom.

Will Obama call on the moderate Muslim community to engage in this endeavor? Probably not. However, by viewing the first minority president with a Muslim name to boot, this segment of the population may realize that America's principles are strikingly superior to their deranged brethren, and not as racist as previously perceived prior to an Obama victory. "The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia," reports Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution from a U.S.-Muslim conference in Qatar, "that certainly speaks to Muslims abroad." Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times found that Egyptians "don't really understand Obama's family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name 'Hussein', it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations." (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5845)

As I used sexism to combat sexism, I will now use superficiality to combat the superficial. Voting for a man because of his name, in the hopes that his name alone will unite a populas, appears to be a surface maneuver — but cosmetics are important, to Palins and Americans alike. Look at how our citizens ate up the rock-star/messiah show the eloquent Obama has performed throughout the entire election. Perhaps moderate Muslims will see this handsome face with the right name for them. Indeed, Bin Laden and company will find it increasingly difficult to paint America as "The Great Satan" with a new President admired internationally. (New York Daily News, October 22, 2008, p. 33) Maybe Barack Hussein Obama's name will unintentionally unite the moderate Muslim community against its militant counterpart. He does not get my vote because his skin is black, (affirmative action) green (both inexperienced and environmental), pink(o), nor thin (he's very sensitive), but simply because his name is Barack "Hussein" Obama.

• Home ::
• Copyright ::
• Contact

Archives

• Journal