Abdulghani,

Your solution would make sense if both parties had something to offer. In the Middle East Israel holds all the cards. The Palestinians do not have any land they can trade or compromise upon. They compromised in 1948 when Israel was unilaterally created by the West. Now Israel wants the Arabs to compromise on the West Bank and the Golan. Usually the starting point for negotiations is some sort of middle ground. Israel's starting point is with its hands so deep in Arab pockets that a compromise would leave the Arabs completely shortchanged. As hypocritical, discriminatory and full of double standards its policy is, the United States remains the only country that could possibly make the Israelis undertake an equitable compromise based on U.N resolutions. The Arabs have already offered peace in exchange for Israel essentially implementing U.N S.C resolution 242. If the Israeli's want peace, it is there.

I think it is time for the Muslim World to try to befriend what they realize to be their immediate enemy - Israel. It is time for them to stop having a dialogue with Israel through America and instead start a direct dialogue. Who knows! Politics of not only the Middle East but that of the whole world may change! Peace may prevail! Muslim and Israeli leaders may start exchanging visits! Terrorism may disappear! America may stop having a negative judgment about Islam and the Muslim World!

I understand what you say but nevertheless, the ones who should worry about to have to apologize and try to seek for the forgiveness and respect among other people, should still have to be the cowards who can murder in cold blood and without any remorse indefense people just because there is always the UN community willing to cut a deal to talk about the civil casualties which cannot be distinguished from the martyr-shields families of terrorists or the just 5 minutes before killer terrorist, but that actually serves as a coffee syndrome for the peacekeepers to serve as confusion strategy. The point and problem is that there is no chance in the fact that most terrorists as we know them at present are always committed to the "Prophet" lessons which are for many purposes nothing else than just the source of the paranoid schizophrenia behind the will of any suicide bomber, which still nowadays and after all the pain human kind has to carry, still pretend to engage people to launch a project to exterminate the people of Israel denying publicly there was not such an holocaust and nevertheless being so incoherent as to expect for comprehension or more absurd still, for an apology. If people of the world hate so much the US for having explosively reject this imposed dictatorial task I think that there is still a light at the end of the road and there will be no more room for the envy and the muslim moralist hate. They should be ashamed for its criminal behaviour and should be neglected as people just for their disrespect toward who they do not understand. And those are in general just muslims or arabs or the like. The brutality does not stems from the way from violence but from the intrinsic trigger spreading it. And as far as I known the communist and all the like as for example the fundamentalists muslims, the nazis, the faschists, the narcotraficants and believe it or not the hypocrites pacifists are the ones who spread it into the world, in the name of Ala or the social injustice or the like in the last century. Those are the people who have always resort to the violence to produce the change they want without matter of what the rest of the people may think. The democracy, as a way to solve social problems has been rejected systematically by those mentally delayed always backed up by the chinese or the soviets same old communists and pacifists always passing by the hot potato. The western people, with the exception of a few delayed ones, had always support democratic regimes which have no more the violence a the mean source of change. The US have been always among the people who has preserve democracy from all the totalitarist dictatorial trends in the world. The cubans or the muslims cannot afford this crude reality. The ones who resort to unfold violence are the ones who at the end are going to search at forgiveness from the people and I am not talking about the supporting terrorism one.
As far as I understand, the land of Israel, was taken off and stolen from the the hands of the jews precisely by the people who, once projected in time, come to represent now exactly the same people who backs up the arab and/or muslim neo-nazi-terrorism and are about the same hypocrites pacifists who decimated that land and distributed it between their friends just to keep them happy and avoid any further sectarian violence. So, as you may happen to see, the actual responsible of the mess it´s going on neither necessarily are the ones you think and fortunately nor has it already been decided as Ala or Madonna may have decided.
One last remark, turning to the starting point, as far as I know, foreign affairs secretary C. Rice has a PhD academic level and so has Kissinger, etc. You are wrong if you think that the people who usually backs up the current policies are just academic pets. Maybe you some people them as pets because they do not reinforce what they think but this does not mean anything. Furthermore, politics is not an exact science and considered as an intellectual discipline does not worth nothing: there are no proofs, only opinions and responsibilities to hold. Any way, I do not realize Stephen Weimberg celebrating the suicide bombers crashing against the twin towers or backing the project for the jews exterminium. The muslim should apologize but cannot because their co-terrorists would kill them.
In the other hand, for your records, the war on Iraq was just a matter of time to be launched off, but not because Bush was behind the 9/11 attack as some people use to asseverate, always without enclosing any respect-deserving proof, but because all people in power at the US government, democrats and republicans without distinction were tired of Saddam Hussein despotism and this was an implied commonplace that without him in power the world would be a better place. If people hates that much the US it is possibly because they have the envy growing up greater than themselves, this is what to pass by the hot potato means. There is not such a gap between people and politics, neither here, nor in the East and the academics would not change that fact. Bush has not become the commander in chief by a "coup détat" and war on terror, is an incompetent answer but just because people has make it so. Before the war in Irak was launched all the people who hate the US where against it and considered it wrong, no matter what it was going to happen. Furthermore, what happened is determined by what the people like you feel about. People is always fighting for power and don´t mater what the truth is going to reject what does not help them. the war was imposed to the US but the people like you want to win it without having any unpleasant consequence The treat this as you do. it is maybe the only way out the aggression. In the face of war, academics should say nothing, specially if they are the same old pacifists with an academical degree as guaranty for its competent impartiality in this case to be crucial. Such a supposed best strategy is actually nothing else than a fake. The US and their allies were granted no choice. They just have to fight. At least they are not turning their back on it. Fortunately in this way at least people is not going to became approval-dependent but instead will learn to act coherent with its own beliefs.

"obviously 9/11 happened because of Shebaa Farms !!!

also World War One!!!

also the Trojan war!!!

its all because of Shebaa Farms !!!"

You're getting close. Just expand the scope of the territory a bit further south... yep... a little eastwards...getting there... Have we covered the colonialist creation of a theocratic state that discriminates against non-Jews, occupies millions of Arabs and keeps them caged in slums while also making another million of them refugees yet? Aahhh...
Yep we're there now.

I am astounded by this "journalist's" lack of basic knowledge that glares out of his article. This is especially amazing seeing that he writes for a newspaper in the Middle East. Al Qaeda made it quite clear even before 9/11 that American policy in the Middle East was unacceptable e.g. support of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq that were punishing the PEOPLE severely, American military presence in Saudi Arabia etc.

If anything Al Qaeda made it quite clear that what they wanted was for the US to leave the Muslim world alone. Most Muslims today want the very same thing. The US should stop blindly supporting Israel in their oppression of Palestinians and the US should stop interfering in the Muslim world. If the US just does these two things their image in the Muslim world will improve for sure. The irony about the US is that they are a superpower because they satisfy their greed for resouces and they manipulate world affairs to suit their own interests but it seems that it will be these same factors that will be their undoing.

obviously 9/11 happened because of Shebaa Farms !!!

also World War One!!!

also the Trojan war!!!

its all because of Shebaa Farms !!!

As a UK citizen who works with US citizens, I am constantly depressed by the view that all Muslims are potential terrorists (it's the religion thing apparently).

It is wrong to talk to them to find out what their views are as this would be supporting terrorism.

Democracy is the correct solution to all ills for all states, providing that the US likes the outcome (can you have democratic terrorists - Yes ! Hamas for example).

Mearsheimer and Walt are anti-American anti-semitic perverts, who have no right to be educating 'our kids' at university.

What is going on at Guantanamo is not actually torture, it's more a sort of attempt to show how much we like the internees. Anyway, the US has no need of the Geneva Conventions.

Criticism only appears to be leveled at the White House and perhaps at the feebleness of Congress. In all other respects the US knows what othere countries want, even better than they themselves!

There's a biblical reference to motes and specs in eyes ,if I remember correctly. It may be quite apposite.

Blame it on Texas.

I cannot believe it : sensible educated people taken for a ride: Hey its all about Wealth,Power and Greed. Translated in current geopolitical terms it means Oil and Israel. Militarily superior nations always make war on the weak and small nations. "They always find a reason" Remember what Chief Bromden used to say in the novel 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest'
Currently USA specialises in this area it attacks countries which are much smaller in size. Vietnam,Cambodia,Panama,Grenada etc. Iraq is 25million and that too was first softened by decades of sanctions only then did the brave american warriors attacked it and that too with such "shock and awe". By the way that 25 million really meant only 8 millions would resist the occupation and they were the Sunnis. Even though I suspect that many Sunnis too would have liked Saddam to be killed. So that would leave us with only 6 million.
So we come down to a nation of 300 million fighting a third world nation of about 6 million and into its 4th year and yet not able to accomplish the task. Some one said "mission accomplised." I didnot. Gee.
Patriotism is such a disease. It clouds the mind. It makes idiots out of sensible people. They lose their ability to think straight. Listen someone is taking you for a ride. Challenge those who challenge your patriotism. Dont let your loved ones die in vain like it happened in Vietnam.
Dont let your country trample human dignity and deliver "shock and awe" like the carpet bombing of a small country like Cambodia. There is no bravery in that. There is nothing patriotic about spraying agent orange on the foliage and trees in Vietnam. There are still idiots who believe
"we could have won". Is he shameless or is he brainless?. Listen I said you only fight small countries very small countries,but once China came in the fray you cannot win simply because they can afford to lose one million and you cannot.
Dont repeat the mistakes. This is not about power. This is only destruction. I will tell you what real power is. Real power is the ability to change and what a profound change it can bring with little force or with minimum force and violence.
Over 130,000 Iraqis dead is not a small number. No wonder people do not have any more respect for Americans in the muslim and the Arab world. The main reason being the muslims and the Arabs know what Military Power means. They know what true Power is.
Dont forget they were the rulers of the world for a thousand years just like you are now. You have another 700 years to go to equal their record, do this before the Mexicans overrun this place!
Just bombing a place from 3000 ft or having an arsenal of cluster bombs is not real power. The Arabs know what true grit and power is. Let me give you my favourite example. Mohammad bin Qasim,at age 19, an Arab general lands in Sind and Conquers upto Multan (800 miles) and introduces the religion of Islam all done in 2.5years.
Then he was withdrawn from the region by the King in Baghdad and killed because he had become too popular.
All the changes he brought to Sind and Punjab still endures. He changed the course of history and people in Sind and Punjab admire him and respect the great warrior who came from Basra.
Bremer is no Mohammad bin Qasim.
History is replete with conquests of genuine power. Douglas McArthur was one such conquerer. He conquered Japan and made it a friend of the United States. He knew he must show his respect to the Japanese Emperor and the Japanese were grateful for it. To win the heart of your enemy you need a different level of guts and courage. Things like Abu Ghraib and Hadissa and Guantanamo do not help. Go read about Saladin or you may watch the movie the
Kingdom of Heaven. By the way read the book
Is the father of Jesus also the God of Mohammad. Patriotism is a good thing if taken in a humble way and its is an instrument of the devil when taken with arrogance. God is my witness I have my ties with mankind and humanity. I feel truly liberated. I will never send my son to die in an unjust war, not for Cheney not for Bush.

Since politics is essentially theater and the main reason for the rise in anti-americanist is poor and despicable performance of George W Bush (illegal war, torture, Katrina and total denial of any wrong doing to mention a just few) in order to regain some standing in the world we the United States of America must impeach Bush and renounce our violent and murderous war on Islam. This is to win the hearts and minds of those that hate us break the circle of violence we have created.

Read "Dead Eye Dick" - our post WW II epilogue is getting pretty ugly.

God of War:
"Was 9/11 a false flag operation? ..."
If you believe conspiracy theories about 9/11 then in effect you are suggesting our leaders are actually evil geniuses instead of the bumbling fools that they appear to be. In fact the latter are far more common then the former I'm afraid. Really, if you believe in conspiracy theories, you are not thinking straight.

olanskii:
"The world and, I promise, the US would be a better and safer place for it."
And I promise you that you are wrong!

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

The world is slowly moving on. it's becoming smaller and more integrated. Wars, poverty, corruption and despots are brough closer to home by how modern economy, media and travel -globalisation - is affecting us. One would hope that as we grow closer we also develop strong and functional world bodies that can balance, arbitrate and lead. Yes we have the UN, the WHO the WTO. Organisations that have some democratic structures and some ability to act.

But at the gateway to the 21st century we are still standing in the shadow of National Interest. The US naturally casting the longest shadow of them all. For all of President Bush's rethoric about freedom and democracy he is no friend of the international kind. It would naturally require the US to listen and respect the opinion of other states and peoples. Neither are qualities the current US administration possess. And it's for this basic reason the US has lost love, trust and admiration world wide.

The question is not how the US should lead the world or how it should shape the Middle East or elsewhere in order to be loved or otherwise. It should do neither. If the US has moral currage and real strenght, it will see the future and it's own interest in a global reality where states abide by real international democratic principles (and yes that disqualifies the current UN and most other international institutions). It means a world where the US, and everybody else, may only punch their democratic, not economical and military, weight. The world and, I promise, the US would be a better and safer place for it.

Utopian? oh yes. But globalisation and development in the 21st century will see a steady challenge to borders and the nation state. Like the historic Italian city states we can put our trust in walls, guns and Machiavelli, with it's inherant consequences. Or we can grow up as a planet.

Michael Young writes:
"But the attacks came nonetheless -- not directed against specific U.S. policies or rhetoric, but directed against America as America. Al Qaeda's objective was merely to kill as many people as possible. It was left to others, particularly America's critics, to read what they wanted into the mass murders, while Al-Qaeda's leaders offered no explanation."

Well, that IS interesting. No explanation, eh? I find that quite fascinating. Because Osama Bin Laden is on record as denying that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks AT ALL. And by repeated polls, most Muslims believe this to be true as well! So this begs the question: who exactly WAS responsible for 9/11?

There are only two real questions that need to be properly answered to everyone's satisfaction.

1. Was 9/11 a false flag operation? If so, by who? Mossad or some other Israeli organization? In collusion with people in our own government? I find it most amusing that those who are most vocal against the War in Iraq, and even the War On Terrorism in general, are often incapable of accepting that 9/11 may have been a conspiracy, let alone what it was beyond that: a stroke of tactical and strategic luck (or genius, depending on one's perspective) by those who support Israel. It is literally written in an Army briefing that Israel is highly questionable as a consistently reliable US ally, as they have a very long history of successfully pulling off false flag operations, usually to their benefit. Let alone more blatant actions agains the US and our allies, such as the cover up of the attack on the USS Liberty. Look it up! A more aggressive and unbiased investigation into the actual truth of 9/11 needs to be re-opened immediately to settle this once and for all.

and regardless of the answer to question #1, we need to address question #2:

2. Are the Islamo-fascists actually fascist, and more to the point, are they actually bent on our destruction, or just Israel's? This is a valid question, as if true, then why have we not treated them as we treated fascist Japan? If the Islamo-fascists are in effect, and are out to get us, then on September 12, 2001, we should have declared martial law, reinstituted the draft, set up internment camps, started recycling of war goods, issued war bonds, and destroyed every country that harbored or supported the terrorists, even with nuclear weapons as needed. It's just that simple. That's what you do when you are fighting theo-fascists; just like we did against the Japanese. Nuking 'em saved American AND Japanese lives, as they would have NEVER surrendered otherwise. Such is the mindset of people when they are fighting for their god (in their case, the emperor).

The fact that we did NONE of these things, however, is highly suspicious, and leads one to believe that the fundamentalist Islamicists are not quite the threat that they have been made out to be. The fact that neither Iraq nor Iran had or has any launch vehicles capable of carrying WMD all the way to America is also another point rarely discussed in the MSM (mainstream media). Let alone the WMD themselves. Oh gee, and who just happens to own / control a sizable chunk of the media? I'll give you three guesses....

And yet North Korea DOES have launch vehicles, and probably nukes as well, and yet we do nothing. Hypocrisy, anyone? The gift that keeps on giving....

- God Of War, California

US is run by Jew lobby, and for some reason thru times Jew arrogance have raised continuous anti-semitism. They believe they are Gods chosen people, and master race in the face of the Earth. Other peoples opinions may vary from this.

So this "Anti-Americanism" = Anti-Semitism.

Hollowood (Propaganda), Law and Politics is virtually run by Jews is US, Israel is a holy ally.

I should clarify my position, I think. I am not a pacifist. I think we should deter attacks and respond very severely to provocations. I just don't think we should initiate the hostilities. That does not mean wait passively and fail to prepare to defend ourselves. I think that if the Muslim world wants to live under Sharia or Baathism or whatever, let them. We can support the people we like and who like us, and "ignore" the rest.

Fighting against guerrillas is hard, so the best thing is if they take over, so that way they become responsible for the country. Then if the country starts a war, we have targets and assets to attack. The warfare becomes symmetrical.

It is better to fight an opponent who has something to lose than one who has nothing to lose.

North Korea is another one. Why should we worry about "nuclear blackmail" from them. We should turn that around and nuclear blackmail them. I mean, who's the "superpower" here, US or them. Our squeamishness is our weakness. Our attempt to be "nice" actually has the opposite effect of increasing suffering. Machiavelli understood this well. If the US was truly ruthless no one would dare to be our enemy.

"Don't you think this terrorist organization was trying to prompt a reaction from the US?"

I remember the sense of national bewilderment after 9/11 as many asked "why do they hate us?"

I remember Bin Laden's message where he stated his reasons for attacking us - His belief that we were just trying to steal their riches (oil) as well as what he sees as an ongoing religious war (an extension of the crusades).

While his claims about oil are credible enough, I remember thinking that his claim about our crusader mentality was just whacked out.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been handily manipulated into validating most of Bin Laden's assertions.

President Bush has communicated several different rationalizations for attacking Iraq:

1. The Hussein regime did not comply with UN resolutions - True enough, but we seem to have dropped this from our list of reasons.

2. WMD - this reason seems to have died on the vine. Actually, died before going on the vine.

3. Ties with Al-Qaeda - Iraq didn't have any significant ties before the current mess. Bush admits this directly, but still plays the innuendo card.

4. President Bush said he prayed and God told him to attack Iraq. This reason has not been refuted

Reasons 1-3 are no longer operational. The oil motive still seems to be in play, although President Bush never listed it as a reason for going to war. I wonder how reason #4 plays to Bin Laden's followers? It's the only one still standing.

I believe that the Bush administration's inarticulate swagger has bolstered Bin Laden's support by broadening the conflict. I beleive that this was their goal in the 9/11 attacks. Killing "as many as possible" was just a means to an end for them.

Mr. Young, I'm struck by this sentence of your posting referring to the terrible events of 9/11: "Al Qaeda's objective was merely to kill as many people as possible." This assertion is similar to one made by Condoleeza Rice in testimony to Congress in 2004. What I don't understand is why anyone with experience in international affairs would come to such a facile conclusion! Don't you think this terrorist organization was trying to prompt a reaction from the US? Once you begin to think along these lines, you eventually need to ask yourself whether the Bush Administration has been doing what Al-Qaeda hoped for. The probable answers are quite sobering.

Cut all ties with Israel and become a whole-hearted supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, to the extent of calling for Israel's removal from the ME; Withdraw from Iraq and send the entire military budget plus all foreign aid monies to the Arab governments; Admit you are contrite and ashamed about your policies for the last 50 years and will never follow those policies again; Get rid of your nuclear weapons and dismantle your war machine: Remove Bush and his henchmen NOW----and those camel-screwers WOULD STILL HATE HATE HATE YOU!
Bomb the hell out of them! That'll make them come a-crawlin'. Who cares if they hate you so long as they fear you! Behave like the great power you are, not like the wussies the Democrats want you to be!

A couple of points:

First, as Karim also stated, while Al Qaeda may not have specifically claimed responsibility for 9/11, it is not true that they have offered no explanation for why they are at war with the US. They have stated their reasons, however reprehensible they may be. It is not their method, perhaps for tactical or propaganda reasons or to allow conspiracy theories to develop, to claim responsibility for any specific terrorist acts.

Second, the question was:
"Should it be a goal of the U.S. to reduce that hostility and, if so, what's the best way to do it?"
Notice that the word "popularity" was not used. Not being loved and not being liked or popular is different from having hostile people who want to attack and kill you. Indifference would be just fine with me. The more we involve ourselves in the affairs of others, the more hostility we create. We would eventually be fine if we stopped actively meddling in the region. When you stir up a hornets nest, the best thing to do is not to try and calm the hornets down and get them to like and accept you, but to leave and not come back until they have calmed down.
The presence of an outside enemy in the US and Israel actually increases support for the hardliners. By playing that role for them, we actually are inadvertently propping up the very regimes we oppose. Cuba is another example. We could have ended communism long ago by switching to a policy of engagement.

Karim: I think many Americans would rather forget the ME existed all.

Laura, deBaathification and disbanding the Iraqi army can be considered mistakes only if you're willing to believe that the present sectarian violence is something other than a hangover of decades of Baath party rule. Once you accept the fact that Shiite violence against Sunnis is the expected reaction, and consider that the present government is multi-ethnic and, despite the violence, it's not at the level that can honestly be called a civil war, then you might consider that perhaps it's a necessarily messy and violent beginning to a good outcome.

DeBaathification and disbanding of the Iraqi army were (in addition to being two sides of the same coin), in hindsight, exactly the correct actions. Failure to do the first would have made the Shiite reaction even worse than it is now -- perhaps even too much for al Sistani's influence to keep from spinning out of control. The Sunni insurgency isn't the reason for the Shiite violence; it's merely an excuse to carry out what many Shiites perceive as merely justice (I'm not suggesting it's helpful or ultimately justified, though). What's remarkable is that it's not more of a bloodbath -- much credit to the US military.

It's dismaying that you could be ill-informed enough to lament the disbanding of the old Iraqi army. The new Iraqi army is one of the success stories of the coalition's efforts -- and it really is a coalition effort, mostly the US, but with significant contributions in training and support by many other nations as well. Unlike the Iraqi police, the Iraqi army is considered professional and is widely trusted by Iraqis. Their capabilities and numbers are growing, and if Iraq succeeeds (and it will as long as the US doesn't give up too early), the Iraqi army will be recognized as a unifying force in the country. If the different ethnic groups can be coalesced into a single army with any degree of success, there will be no civil war -- and if there is no civil war, the insurgency loses, the coalition and the Iraqis win.

Bremer probably didn't do it as well as it might have been done, but the basic strategy was sound.

1- When Michael Young writes that

"But as far back as I can remember in the Middle East, no one has collectively loved -- even liked -- the Americans."

he certainly is not reflecting the reality on the ground. Perhaps Mr Young can post on this thread evidence in the form of polls across the Arab world.

I am Moroccan and I certainly can remember decades earlier when America, with its government and people, used to be admired and loved.

All of that has changed of course when people have discovered and encountered the brutality and the ugly face of US foreign policy that has killed more Arabs than all of the authoritarian Arab governments combined in less than 3 years.

2- Mr. Young is NOT a Muslim.

Why is he telling US policy makers what to do with the Muslim world?

I understand he can suggest ideas for the Arab world since he is Arab, but why speak for the majority of Muslims who are not Arab?

Who elected Mr. Young to speak for over 1 billion Muslims?

3- Young claims Al-Qaeda offered no explanation of the attacks on America.

It seems that Mr. Young has been sleeping for the last 10 years.

Al-Qaeda clearly explained why they attacked America. I suggest for Mr. Young to read Bin-Laden statements.

Just because Al-Qaeda had reasons for its terrorist attack doesn't mean they were right to kill so many people.

The United States government also had reasons for nuking 2 civilian cities in Japan, didn't it? Didn't they have reasons for the mass murder of 120,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki within few seconds?

Even TODAY, few in America condemn that specific attack on Japan.

Apologists like Mr. Young who try so hard to appear "understanding of US policies" in our region are no different than the pro-US authoritarian officials that run countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc.

I will not blame Arab shortcomings on US policies but one way to move forward is for US policy makers to LEAVE THE MIDDLE EAST ALONE.

LEAVE OUR LANDS, OUR COUNTRIES, OUR PEOPLE ALONE.

STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO ARAB GOVERNMENTS.

STOP KILLING PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

If Mr. Young is unhappy with this, well the Green Zone in Iraq is in DIRE NEED of Arab APOLOGISTS like him, and the PAY IS SO GOOD.

And if the US finally withdraws from Iraq (which I hope they do ASAP), then I am sure the PENTAGON WILL LOVE TO HIRE PEOPLE like HIM. They still have OTHER WARS TO WAGE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

A bon entendeur.

Ah, now why does rhethoric like Mr. Young's sound so familiar? Oh yes, this is the same point of view held by L. Paul Bremer when he swooped into Baghdad in May of 2003. His insistance that U.S. efficiency would not be hindered by low popularity among the Iraqi people and their leaders led to 1. de-Baathification, 2. disbanding the Iraqi Army, 3. shutting down Iraqi public utilities. Put all three in a hot stone oven, cook three months, and lo! an insurgency.

How hard is the fallicy of this idea to comprehend? How many of us extend ourselves for superiors we hate and despise? How many of us believe rumor and gossip because we don't like the person the slander is about? Don't read this and shake your head "not I." At some point in your life you've been swayed along those lines over something petty. How hard is it to understand that when the stakes are really high for people, the backstabbing that results is also of a higher degree?

Either we should lead the free world or we should go home.

Michael Young is right in saying that the first priority of U.S. policy in the Middle East should not be a public- relations exercise.
Rather it should be, at this historical moment, in preventing Iran from totally breaking apart the world's non-proliferation agreement. It should be in preventing Iran from attaining the means to blackmail and threaten all its neighbors. It should be in preventing Iran from making Islamic fundamental radicalism the most popular ideology within the Islmic world. It must be in preventing Iran from attaining weapons which it through use of proxies could terrorize the planet with. It should be in short preventing a 'nuclear Iran' from coming into being.
If it does that it will have the gratitude of every other nation in the Middle East, whether they say it aloud, or not.

"talk about Iraq in terms of what is good for Iraqis, not of the American interests ... This absurd situation"

There's nothing absurd about being altruistic. It is actions like this that show that America is an altruistic country. Being altruistic causes other countries to trust you, which is why the US has a wonderful NATO alliance WITH it, instead of getting a hostile alliance formed AGAINST it. It also leads to things like NATO forces in Afghanistan, taking the pressure of US forces, as the NATO countries are also altruistic. Those other countries could have acted in their narrow self-interest which would have been to do nothing, instead of opening themselves up to terrorist retribution. It is American altruism that will end up seeing the world liberated and cooperative, not an America that is only concerned about its self-interest.

America is doing the right thing now. That is why my country, Australia, supported the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has tried very hard to get to the top of Osama Bin Laden's hit list. You can't get that sort of friendship without being an altruistic actor.

What Michael Young observes about American academics with expertise on the Middle East is true of many others as well. Indeed I wonder sometimes if one of the functions of American higher education is to serve as a refuge for the chronically alienated, a role also played by homeless shelters, some of our prisons and certain isolated areas of the Mountain West.

But I think the real problem is that America still has a relatively very brief history of considering its interests overseas -- briefer still if we remember that most of the history we do have took place in the context of the long Cold War against Communism. Because Americans are not used to thinking in terms of their interests in various parts of the world, some of them are prone to fill the vacuum with passionate advocacy of other people's causes. The other people can be Israelis, Arabs, or Cubans, and their causes may have merit, or not. What they have in common is that they are not ours -- their success will not bring any especial profit to us, nor their failure any great disaster.

It isn't just alienated academics who are prone to this failing. Notice, for example how often Bush administration spokespeople (and Bush administration critics) talk about Iraq in terms of what is good for Iraqis, not of the American interests that require this country to spend more in Iraq than in all the other countries with which the United States maintains relations, combined. This absurd situation persists because many Americans who should know better have persuaded themselves that what is good for Iraqis must be good for us. This they call idealism.

It is not the only approach to foreign affairs open to us. Intermittently in our history there have been administrations -- those of Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, for instance -- that recognized the importance of American values in maintaining support for foreign policy but that emphasized the pursuit of American interests. They did not pretend to care only about our great idealistic values or try to stir mens' hearts with highflown rhetoric explaining why we only sought to achieve other people's highest aspirations.

Unhappily that approach to foreign policy fell out of favor as its last consistent Presidential practicioner, Nixon, became politically toxic because of Watergate. It is also true that its successful practice in the modern world requires stronger foreign policy institutions and more skilled diplomats and other operatives than we have now. But we see where the alternative has led us. Among other things it has led us to ponder why we are hated and how we can make ourselves loved, or at least liked -- a question natural for adolescents, not for global powers or their citizens.

Iran possesses, what 1/6 of all the hydrocarbons on the planet and the vast majority of their population is living in poverty, but they're spending millions to make highly enriched uranium? Hmmmm...

If Tehran wants a nuclear bomb so bad I'm not sure I actually have a problem with it. They seem responsible enough, especially when you take into account their president's remarks about wiping other countries off the face of the earth and their funding of Hezbollah and other terrorist activities throughout the region. In fact I say that if a nuclear bomb is actually what they desire, and it seems apparent that they do, that we in the West stop being so hypocritical and greedy with our technology and provide them with one. I think something along the lines of a 75 megaton airbust 3000 ft above Tehran would help them make the progress they're looking for.

I agree with much of what you write, but do you really think that the refusal of academics to collaborate with the current administration is the cause of the Bush Blindness? It seems to me that exactly the reverse is true. The Bush administration has happily turned to its pet stable of like-minded professors (read: Bernard Lewis) to reinforce its beliefs and prejudices while consistently ignoring and shutting out academics who challenge Bush policies and preconceptions. After Sept. 11, 2001, a chorus of intelligent Mid-East experts anxious to be involved in government thought that their hour of service had come. Instead, those who have dedicated their lives to cross-cultural understanding have not been given any opportunity to contribute if they disagree with the administration's bone-headed prejudices about how the Middle East (and the rest of the world) works. I don't think Bush even realizes there's a problem, though. A man who sends Karen Hughes around the world to charm Muslims clearly isn't drafting his team from the intellectual A-list.