But then I observed that in the Israeli-Palestine situation, it wasn't happening; in the Israeli-Lebanon situation it wasn't happening; in Iraq it wasn't happening, in Afghanistan it wasn't happening, nor was it in the Philippines, Thailand, Kosovo, or in the Western Muslim population.

Few, if any, Muslims stand up and denounce their radical brothers, at least not loud enough and often enough to be heard and counted. Fewer still take strong action to stop the reigns of terror. If moderates are in such overwhelming numbers, why are they allowing these "few" radicals to exist at all? Why are they allowing radicals to roam the world and be supported by oil money? Why are they funding Islamic schools worldwide, even in the US, that teach the warrior principles of Islam?

I sense that your ideas are that we face more of a police action than a major conflict, and a rather small one at that. I do hope you are right, but I believe that we will be faced with slapping the terrorists down ourselves, without much help from moderate Muslims.

I will look for the reference you cited. The point being, I suppose, that historically there have been conflicts within every nation and between many nations sparked by waves of new ideas and new threats, religions, persecutions, and dreams of conquest. Nothing new in this. Crusades! Jewish history. The hate factor. China...

Does this teach us that peace comes from pacifism?
That the Mongol hordes were turned back by buying them off?

To me, the first lesson from history is that for a nation to survive it must be cohesive, strong, vigilant and proactive against threats.
This is especially true for insidious, destabilizing threats from within an open society.

I believe that the American public would be horrified if they could read the full classified reports of the HSA/FBI on current internal threats to the nation, with a special focus on Islamofacists. I believe they would be even more horrified to learn just how little we can actually do about these threats until they become actualized, and how few assets we have to keep close track of such groups in the first place.

This kind of violent response to change is absolutely not exclusive to Muslims. I strongly suggest you find a copy of The Ghost Dance by Weston La Barre. While out of print and a bit out of date in its use of Freudian analysis in part, this book gives a comprehensive look at how societies react and over-react to changes, particularly those imposed from outside. What's going on is not new, even for the Islamic world.

New means of communication and the 'shrinking' of the globe makes these over-reactions more acute and more dangerous. I don't doubt that for a moment. But it doesn't make them unmanageable in the long run. The radical imams are a problem. Traditionalists who fear that their children will be corrupted by living in a Western country to which the family has immigrated are a problem. They don't let their kids adapt to or adopt Western culture. Instead, they fill their heads with tripe about the glories of the homeland and tales of golden ages that never actually existed. By sending their kids back to wherever to get married or to get educated, then guarantee that the kids will not fit in any society.

These are real problems that need real solutions. But simply tossing them on the trash heap as 'unredeemable' isn't one of the solutions. Some, no doubt, are gone for good. Most can still be persuaded, I believe, with proper effort and funding for the right programs by their Western host countries. Yes, they are the ones who have to adapt, but they need a bit of a break, too, to compensate for the crap of their upbringings.

I don't know what report you've read with those numbers. No report I've ever read has put the numbers anywhere near that. Most, in fact, put the total of real extremist Muslims on the order of 100K, globally. You could get the numbers you cite by stretching the definition to include those who express any support for any of the goals of the radicals, I guess, like 'US out of the Gulf' or 'No cultural imperialism'. But you're not going to get them to strap on a bomb and go strolling.

Even if you say there are 10 million radicals, that's still 0.625% of the world's Muslim population of 1.6 billion. That's a pretty small percentage by which to condemn the majority.

That minuscule percentage can still be lethally dangerous, of course. They do need to be monitored and taken out of play. But we really need to be careful that we're not needlessly alienating those who just might be able to help us.

I am very happy thinking that 4.2 million US Muslims are not a threat to us, but...

One of my concerns has been the TV documentary that traced the radicalization of a young middle class and moderate Palestinian, I believe, in a matter of days, resulting in his becoming a suicide bomber. The effort to convert him was supposedly done by several higher level Muslims, who managed somehow to convince the youth that his fate was to blow himself up for Allah. His family was horrified, but accepting in the end, which gave me the distinct impression that such conversion or radicalization can be achieved relatively easily. He then blew himself up in a public place.

Apply this idea of radicalization to the mass of Muslims in the US, a few at a time, and you have a potent force for an Israel-like bombing war sooner or later.

Read also the many reports from the FBI, and other groups about the radical imams in US mosques, and the hair-raising speeches they give to their worshipers. While I recognize that the use of "all Muslims are a threat" is not necessarily correct, there is quite a lot of smoke here, which will keep me very suspicious and permanently on guard.

I had direct experience with the Muslim guest workers in Holland, who were very anxious to integrate and be accepted until it became obvious that few would achieve any real acceptance at all. They became a sullen bunch after a few years.

The later events in Holland have borne out the concerns of that time, which was in the 1975-1985 period, when the guest workers numbered about 200,000 in a population of 16 million. In the larger Dutch cities today, the Muslim population approaches 30%-to-40%. The Dutch government is having to act more forcefully to curb the activities of the Muslim population, much to their chagrin.

I would also point out the great difficulties the UK is currently having in preserving their institutions against Muslim incursions. In Canada too, there has been pressure for Sharia. I do not see these events as encouraging for the US in the near future either. The Muslims are insisting on Sharia wherever they can find the pressure points. I do not welcome this trend at all.

Muslims (at least the thinking ones) acknowledge that the Quran is sometimes a confusing document. There are words used there that are unique to the document and no one knows exactly what they mean. The Quran's vocabulary has been traced to at least 11 different languages in use at the time of its compilation, but its exegesis has all been done in what was considered to be contemporary 'classical' Arabic. Analysis is further confounded because of the way the Quran is organized, not in chronological order, but in order of the length of the verses or surat. While academics (Western and Islamic) are pretty sure of the correct chronological order, there remains the problem of 'abrogation', where one verse supersedes one received earlier.

What this means is that although particular words or statements can be found on the pages of the Quran--a tack taken by Robert Spencer, for example--the mere presence cannot be taken as proof that the sentiments expressed are in fact operative.

The Quran, for example, talks about the Jinn, beings somewhere between angels and man. But only the fundamentalists or the villagers really has much use for that concept these days. Those with education tend to see the whole Jinn phenomenon as better explained through psychology.

Where there's a verse that calls for warfare against the Jews, there is also the question (which thinking Muslims do ask) about whether the verse is applicable to a specific historical contingency (i.e. the fights against particular Jewish tribes in Medina) or whether it expresses a general rule. Most interpret the verses received when Mohammed was living in Mecca (i.e., the earlier verses) as being the general rules and those delivered in Medina to be the contingent verses.

Of course one can (and many do) debate these points. But the fact that these are the substance of the debates strongly suggests that simply pointing to a line in the book and saying, "See! It says this!!" is not a substitute for analysis. It's simply making a political statement.

I think you--and your sources--err also in assuming that the Quran is the sole guide to the way Muslims analyze the world around them. They do not. Most are far more interested in the things that we all deal with: putting food on the table; getting the kids educated and married; hoping for a raise, a good house, grandchildren. Most don't have the leisure to sit down and work out whether what they're doing every minute of the day is exactly according to the Sunna. Add to this the fact that except in Saudi Arabia, Islam has adopted and adapted to local practices and customs which may or may not be more liberal.

While you won't find a legal bar and grill in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you will in Bahrain or the UAE, in Turkey or Indonesia.

I think one of the errors your sources make (as do many fundamentalist Muslims) is to try and cast every bit of behavior as religiously motivated when, in my view, the majority of it is cultural. I think it critical to understand the differences if one is to truly come to terms with the problems.

So tell me that the view as seen through Islamic writings of all kinds is flat wrong. Tell me if it simply isn't true what the Koran says about Christians and Jews. Tell me that infidels are not in danger from Muslims; that they wish to live peacefully with us side by side. Tell me that the conflict in Israel and Palestine, which has been going on since the inception of Israel, is not about Jew versus Muslim. Tell me that we lost two embassies, 250 or so Marines, 17 dead on the Cole, all for other than Muslim terrorism. And speak from the nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, that Muslims had no part of that massive atrocity. The tell me that Muslims do not mean it when their Koran says they may lie, cheat, steal, or even kill the infidel? Finally, to end this rant, tell me that Islam does not want a new Caliphate.

You are quite correct when you say that by lumping all Muslims into one basket, we may be overlooking friends that can help us to some extent. For an ordinary citizen, it is rather hard to tell friend from foe--same as for our troops in Iraq. The question is, who are these potential or actual Islamic friends, and what power do they exercise over their countrymen and fellow Muslims, especially the clericals?

We seem to be facing the classic "loose federation of warring tribes" with little or no script for the action, except for the Koran (etc),and the feeling that we are the ultimate enemy in an arena where treachery and corruption were invented. Are we to believe that the word of a Muslim to an infidel can be trusted? Please tell me!

Your comments about trying to sell US policy to foreign governments, and vice versa, I suppose, are appreciated. Having been in NATO halls for some ten years, I know what the back channels can do. Having been in Kuwait for business, I know what negotiating with them meant. Having been in Nigeria, I know what the rift there did to many Christians. These brief personal episodes did not help me to feel much sympathy for Islam.

The Islamic Terrorists need the Democrats at or beyond critical mass to achieve their OWN critical mass.

I could as easily say "The Islamic Terrorists need Bush and the neocons in power to achieve their critical mass. Bush is playing right into their hands, witness the recent statement by
Zawahiri

I'd suggest you're not seeing what Muslim are saying because it only rarely gets reported in the US media.

OK, I'll bite... perhaps you'd care to list some of the sources outside the US where the picture is different? I mean, it's not like I've not been looking.... and I mean outside Saudi Arabia, whose leadership has long since decided there rile next depend on the largess of these United States.

I think this is a divisive framing from the point of view of right/left relations in the US. Here's the way I would say it:

We want the various extremist/terrorist organizations to stop trying to kill us. These groups need the support of the general population for recruits, funding, etc. If we can get the general population to like the US more, we might be able to reduce the power of the extremist groups.

Bithead: agree? disagree?

Here's a concept for you: Critical mass.

Understand me clearly; this is not a situation where getting a majority to "like" us is going to help matters much. Indeed; it'll be taken as a sign of weakness, and responded to as such.

Public Diplomacy is a two-pronged venture. One prong seeks to influence foreign opinion about the US. The other seeks to inform the US of foreign opinion and how that may affect policy decisions. I know for a fact that sometimes you have to sell a policy that is simply a stinker for a particular audience. That's life and that's what supporting a policy that I may not even have liked personally meant. It was most certainly my job to let people in the White House, State, and the Pentagon know when something they wanted to do was going to meet opposition. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. One thing it never does is change attitudes overnight. Some projects take as long as 30 or more years to reach fruition. With Congress changing every two years, the Senate every six, and the White House every four or eight, continuity and consistency can be a real bear.

In doing this, I've had guns put to my head literally; my wife and son have been caught in crossfires; I've lost nearly two dozen friends and colleagues to terrorist attacks. I do know that one has to use that big stick at times. But I also know that a stick isn't always the right tool and it doesn't always achieve the desired effect. Sometimes, talking is far more effective.

Dave: Thanks.

I don't think it pollyannaish to work on the undecided, those who are wavering, those who are open to argument. That, in my experience, is the true majority. Yes, you have to talk to the zealots, too, and you can't ignore the ones who are already friends. This is where consistency in policy and message is most critical. It's also the hardest thing to do because to do it honestly ends up pissing off a lot of Americans who'd rather believe the country was conceived without sin. Luther's 'Warts and all' is absolutely necessary, but often runs counter to Congressional interest and the necessity of Congressionally approved budgets.

Bains: To some extent you're right. People do find confirmation in their own attitudes when others support those attitudes. That's what we get with Constitutional government, however. I'm not about to take away free speech just because it complicates the job. It means we have to work smarter and work harder.

Manning: I think you're projecting a bit there. I've spent the better part of my life in Islamic countries, including all Arab countries excepting Mauritania. The idea of living in a caliphate holds zero appeal to me, thanks all the same.

I think there is no one Islam, though there are plenty of Muslims who think there should be. Islam is nearly as diverse as Christianity. You have Islamic countries that don't have a problem with things like drinking. You have Islamic countries that legally prohibit polygamy. You have fairly liberal (at times libertine) countries like Lebanon and semi-theocratic states like Saudi Arabia as well as police states like Syria and the former Iraq and predominantly secular states like Turkey.

The majority of these countries are still developing countries. That brings with it the same political and developmental problems other, non-Muslim developing countries have. Things like dysfunctional traditions, like corruption, like patron/client political relationships. Even things like Female Genital Mutilation is a cultural practice followed by animists, Christians, as well as Muslims in some parts of the world.

There's plenty I don't like about certain manifestations of Islam. The funny things is that most Muslims don't like those things, either. But they do like other things I'm not crazy about. As an American, I tend toward putting the individual above the group. That's not the case, though, for most traditionalist societies. I also don't buy into the socialism, an import from Europe, that colors many Arab reformist platforms.

I think religion is a matter of conscience, not of law. Funnily enough, so do the Shi'a who are killed by Al-Qaeda or Deobandi zealots in Afghanistan and Pakistan or Iraq. So do the Sufi who have been oppressed/suppressed in many Islamic countries.

I think that by making all Muslims your enemy, you completely overlook those who could be, who would be your allies. Maybe there will still be some difference in opinion. I can live with that, so long as those opinions aren't calling for my conversion or death. I don't think 'one size fits all' in most things in life. But don't get to thinking I'm ignorant of the differences between critical differences and marginal ones.

With disturbingly large numbers of Americans believing that there’s something ‘fishy’ about 9/11, it’s hard to argue that foreign audiences are simply off the wall.

I suggest that part of the problem is that this is backwards. Non-Americans read and hear the hyperbolic statements of BDS sufferers, good old fashion self-flagellating American haters, and Dem hating righties and find support for their prejudices. While our rhetoric does not cause outsiders reactions, it supports it.