The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

Israel’s Ruling Likud Party is a Successor to the Terrorist Organisation, Irgun

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

This is an improvement on Mr. Obama’s earlier formulation in his 6 April 2009 remarks to the Turkish Parliament, critiqued in an earlier post, Good Islam, Bad Islam: he now speaks of “confronting violent extremists” instead of “rolling back … violent ideologies” an altogether more feasible task (especially, as “violent ideologies” is suspected to be a thinly veiled coded reference not just to militant Islam, but to most non-militant understandings of Islam as well).

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

This is a curious passage; one that belongs not to the mediaeval age but to ancient Greece: we are to believe that Americans act sometimes by choice (for which presumably they are accountable) and sometimes by necessity (ananke, the personification of destiny, which exempts them from all guilt or blame). But is this distinction valid? Does it apply in this instance?

Let us be clear what Mr. Obama says here, (1) Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans – let us accept this unproven allegation, even though Al Qaeda was judged and found guilty within hours of the 9/11 incident, an inquiry was systematically blocked by the US administration for long, not one of those on the final list (revised several times) of the accused has been charged in a court of law, such confessions of guilt as have been extracted were by methods of torture that would put the Spanish Inquisitors to shame, and many questions remain unanswered; (2) The Afghan Taliban, not even in the official US narrative, had anything to do with 9/11 – they were prepared to hand over Usama bin Ladin to any neutral court of law, and their only “crime” was not to hand him over to the American lynch mob bent upon “bringing justice to him” (no doubt, at the end of a rope, in the words of the Texan, George Bush); ergo, (3) it was “necessary” to bomb, and occupy Afghanistan, and kill (well over 100,000 Afghan men, women, and children, so far) who surely “had done nothing to harm anybody”? What kind of “necessity” was this? Does this not “elevates one nation or group of people over another”? Why was it not “necessary” to bomb Germany where, according to the official narrative, the plot was hatched? And then, “These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with”? This is absurd. Since the invasion of Afghanistan cannot be defended, Mr. Obama is appealing to Necessity (Ananke): the gods made us do it!

Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

“We seek no military bases…“? This strains credulity; if true, the president needs to inform his secretary of defence, whose $ 663,800,000,000 budget request for fiscal year 2010 contains substantial expenditures for construction of bases in Afghanistan ($ 1,400,000,000 for military construction plus $3,900,000,000 for “unclassified” non-DoD items, that can cover a multitude of sins).

“…determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can”? The only Americans they want to kill are those who are killing them and their children, and occupying their countries; most would be unable to point out America on a map. Meanwhile, the American forces are killing hundreds of civilians, including women, children, and the elderly.

And that’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

True; but these strictures apply just as well to equally, if not more accomplished, killers like American General McChrystal, newly assigned to Afghanistan, and his other Special Ops colleagues, whose exploits are well-known.

Were it to be asked who does the following refer to: “They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam“? Most people will say, the Americans.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who’ve been displaced. That’s why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

If military power is not the solution why is the American effort in these two countries being militarised? In the FY 2010 budget request, the share of military (“security”) spending in the total is envisaged to rise from 75% to 78% in Afghanistan, and from 64% to 70% in Pakistan. Also control over US spending is increasingly being shifted to the Department of Defense at the expense of the State Department.

As for development assistance, if the experience in Afghanistan is any guide, 70% of this expenditure will never reach Pakistan (going instead to mercenaries, aka contractors); and perhaps 20-25% will be transferred to Swiss accounts.

By first supporting General Musharraf, who trashed the constitution and laws of Pakistan; then twisting his arm to pardon all politicians guilty of murder, embezzlement, and theft, so they could be (s)elected into a democratic façade; the United States has criminalised politics in Pakistan, and US congressmen and government officials know full well how much corruption will take place, with the aid and abetment.

The tip of the iceberg of President Zardari’s modus operandi is presented in excruciating detail in a congressional staff report, prepared for a committee (Senate Hearing 106-428, Report, text and pdf) in which Senator Carl Levin played a leading role). Moreover it would not be wrong to characterize the new “Af/Pak” strategy as: bribe those you can, kill those you must; to facilitate this, funds are being placed at military commanders’ disposal (like the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund in Pakistan), that will not be subject to the usual standards of accounting control, over the General Accounting Office’s objections.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

The “differences” were justified. America invaded Iraq because it alleged wrongly (knowingly, we now know) that Iraq possessed WMDs, and then insisted that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. As for the link, in an interview with Fox News on 1 June 2009, even Cheney has resiled from that position (“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that”). So it is little consolation that it was by choice that Americans bombed, and occupied Iraq, and have so far killed well over 1,000,000 Iraqi men, women, and children? Why is this not violent extremism?

And then, it boggles the mind how anyone can believe that “the Iraqi people are ultimately better off” under American occupation, no matter how despicable was the tyranny of Saddam. By this logic, can we argue that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are “ultimately” better off for having been bombed? Certainly the Iraqis don’t share this appraisal (90% say they were better off under Saddam); and as Kofi Annan put it: “They had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’“. By any objective indicator of basic needs — access to food, potable water, shelter, electricity, security of life, limb, and property, not to mention dignity, honour and freedom — the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were before the American invasion. The fact is that 300,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam and so far 1,030,000 have been killed by the Americans (according to a History Channel ad for South Africa, censored in America). “These are facts to be dealt with.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people — (applause) — I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. And that’s why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

It is not clear at all that America can help the Iraqis forge a better future. What is clear is that America will not “leave Iraq to Iraqis”: they will leave some of Iraq to the Kurds (an important milestone, on June 1, the Kurds, not Iraq, started exporting oil to Turkey); some to Sunni Iraqis; and some to Shi`ah Iraqis. Iraq, as we knew it, exists no more; the danger is that this may soon be true of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well.

Bagram, Afghanistan, the New Guantanamo Bay

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

These are empty words. Surely, a court of law will not acquit a murderer who pleads for understanding of his fear and anger, provoked by trauma, that led him to act against his nature and kill people. Although the United States cannot be brought before a court of law — and does not have the good grace to submit itself before one — given the enormity of the “acts contrary to our traditions and ideals” a greater degree of contrition would seem warranted.

After all, if the perpetrators of 9/11 were wrong to murder American civilians because of American complicity in providing arms and encouragement to carry out atrocities in Palestine, then surely the American murder of Afghan civilians, in the wake of an unwarranted invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, was equally heinous crime, since they had nothing to do with 9/11; and certainly, the killing of civilian citizens of Pakistan — a non-NATO ally, that had even less to do with 9/11 — is a doubly heinous crime.

As for torture, once again, Mr. Obama is less than fully honest. It is not true that he has “unequivocally” prohibited torture; in fact, it would be more accurate to say that: (i) despite his equivocal declaration, torture at Guantánamo Bay continues in practice, and its closure is doubtful after the US Senate in a bipartisan move blocked funds for its closure; (ii) at other facilities — like Bagram — Mr. Obama is appealing a 2 April 2009 US District Court ruling, in order to be allowed to practice at Bagram, what he has made such a show of aiming to bring to an end at Guantánamo Bay; and finally, (iii) to Mr. Obama’s shame, his “prolonged detention” initiative seeks to expand torture to include methods that civil rights groups were able to stop Bush from using, and to add insult to injury, to make this expanded set of practices legal.

Lastly, if extreme violence beyond the limits of law was inflicted at Guantánamo, as Mr. Obama now admits, why won’t American “violent extremists” be treated like others, and punished for their crimes — as one of the traumatised victims has recently demanded?

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Respect for sovereignty, the rule of law? This is simply not true. As long as America continues on this path, the only partners it will find will be the criminals she has installed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and those that it can buy or frighten. Muslim communities will not be safer until all unwelcome extremists — i.e. all those who act beyond the perimeters of law and justice — leave these countries, and allow them to deal with criminals lawfully and justly.