U.S. Electioneering & Central Asian repercussions

Two notable talk-talks in U.S. election campaigns are creating a stir in Central Asia:

1. Representative Tancredo (R-Colorado) in a town hall meeting on August 3rd, told approximately 30 people in Iowa that any further depredations by Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil would be met, if he were the commander-in-chief, by immediate attacks upon the Holy Cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina.  This is not the first time Mr. Tancredo has talked terror for terror, and defended himself afterward: Timothy Noah at slate.com remembers a radio broadcast in 2005, which Mr. Tancredo also had to defend per an op-ed.  But he has shown incredible fidelity to this idea.

The U.S. State Department was quick to deny any such intent.  I can't imagine the number of phone calls our diplomats had to take over this one, all over the world–and nasty calls, too–.  This would be a day that it would not be fun to be the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.  Or part of the U.S. corps of public diplomacy experts world-wide.

Then during Republican debates this weekend (C-Span broadcast them on the radio), Mr. Tancredo defended his remarks by dissing the State Department.  As ABC (Australia) reported, he said: “Yes, the State Department — boy, when they start complaining about things I say, I feel a lot better about the things I say.”   So besides offending all of the Islamic world, and all people who wish only peace with Islam, he's already started undercutting the administration which he hopes to head in January of 2009.  Along with these great people skills he's showing, he has a great understanding of political economy (where is that oil, exactly, Mr. Tancredo?) and world events (Hizb-ut-Tahrir Conference, Jakarta; trouble in Pakistan; two wars in Islamic countries; trouble in Gaza; oh, yeah, and nuclear escalation in Iran, which only needs threats of nuclear bombardment to make them stand down).

Central Asia's reponse: 
The Islamic Cooperation Organization of Central Asia released a statement condemning the idea out of hand.  Ferghana.ru reports that Mr. Tancredo said the above to crowds of people (actually about 30, but. . . then Mr. Incredo had to go repeat it, so this doesn't count as an exaggeration):

The statement released by the Organization points out that “the US Representative's irresponsible call may escalate tension in the relations with the Moslem world and cause another wave of religious extremism and sufferings of the innocent thousands.” Organization leadership urged the Islamic community to declare Tankredo a person non-grata undesirable in all Moslem countries.

The State Department's response of immediate dissociation was accepted by the Organization's leader, Murat Telibekov, as a sign of good-will.

Mr. Tancredo is reportedly standing by his remarks, as productive of deterrence.  Most, however, are seeing these remarks as incendiary, and productive of more hostility.  The object lesson can be shown in The PakTribune, which documented one response:

Islamabad: Muhammad Farooq Rehmani Convener All Parties Hurriyat Conference AJK and Chairman Jammu and Kashmir People's Freedom League has urged on Muslims all over the world to unite to protect Mecca and Medina against any foreign aggression on the holy soil of Islam.

So instead of deterring violence, it becomes a rallying point for increased defensiveness.  Especially since Mr. Tancredo's hyperbolic response was further exaggerated:

He made these comments here in a press statement on Monday over a speech of the American ruling Republican Party candidate for Presidency, Tom Tancredo, who asked the America administration to hurry up bombardment of Mecca and Medina to deter any nuclear attack on the United States. (emphasis mine).

"Such a poisonous statement can damage relations of Muslim Countries with the USA, and as a result the Pro-American Muslim Governments will fall into crumbs like a sandcastle on the seashore," he claimed.

There were also demonstrations in Pakistan due to Mr. Tancredo's unfortunate big idea for mutual understanding.  That couldn't have helped Pakistan's law enforcement cadres one bit.   Another great day for the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.

2. A speech by Mr. Obama at the Wilson Center (Again, I actually listened to it on C-Span) aimed at developing a more concentrated policy in Afghanistan, featured at one point a promise that we would take care of the Taliban that roost in Pakistan and are destabilizing Afghanistan: even if Pakistan did not allow such a maneuver.  This remark did not take sufficient note of Pakistan's sovereignty, and all weekend, on the news circuit, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice were having to deny or sidestep this statement. 

Mr. Obama's statement was certainly not of the same absymal calibre as Mr. Tancredo's remark.  But Mr. Obama is a more viable candidate, and the action he mentioned sounds more realistic in scope.  Therefore, it was equally productive of grief, and actually may have looked worse.  However, I wouldn't be at all surprised that Mr. Obama learned from this faux pas.  The other guy: apparently not.

That “free and fair election standard” we espouse apparently doesn't include the “constructive” standard as well.  “Free, fair, and productive” elections: that's my ticket.  Otherwise, it could be Dr. Strangelove for President.  Where we could laugh ourselves to death.

Further reading:
Fort Worth Star-Telegram: State Department tells Prez candidates: 'shut up’