Exactly right - because one thing we know for sure, the second and third world does not want to feel the wrath of the American street.

Kingsley Amis once said that all that was wrong in the modern world could be summed up in one word--"workshop". (I would update that to include "mission statement".)

Only a committee to come up with an effete hollow and stupid perspective like this, even a committee appointed by a conservative president. By contrast, no committee would ever conclude that the wisest course is to stand tall and proud behind just and time-tested ideals and remain faithful to them regardless of popularity or image. That, in the long run, will have far more positive effects than desperate image makeovers.

I agree we need to change our image. We need to make much clearer than we have so far the deep contempt we feel for Islam and the complete lack of concern we harbor for its future.

The image problem is precisely due to the fact that the US tries to help them, to fund their countries, build and rebuild their countries, or protect them from marauders (e.g., Kosovo, Afghanistan).

So not only is the US viewed as a sucker; its supposed altruism is most suspect. The people of the regime can understand greed. They can deal with corruption. Thievery and lying are well-known. All these they're comfortable with. They expect it. (One reason, I suspect for European successes.) But take that away and they're rudderless. And very suspicious. And if they believe, ultimately, that you're naive, that's it. You've lost it, kit and kaboodle. No respect left for you, babe.

Then again, the payola merely goes to the upper crust resentment, derision and hate by all those who can't find their way to the trough. Not much trickle-down economics there.... And so the US is viewed by the powerless masses as hypocritically propping up corrupt regimes while espousing democratic values.

(The US doesn't understand this. Not to worry. It's not alone.)

If the US merely left them alone, it at least wouldn't earn their derision. It wouldn't hurt their pride. (True, they can't help themselves, but why should the US so obviously have to point that out by offering its help. And then emphasizing this assistance.)

Nor, if the US destroyed their countries, should it insist on rebuilding them. For the same reason. Take away a person's respect and you take away his all. Same for a country. Same for a people.

Leave those places devastated.

As a sign of utmost respect.

No amount of media savvy or PR or cash will be as effective. Thus this report is just another in a long series of misguided, wasted efforts.

(On the other hand, if the US decided to cut Israel loose, there may be something "to talk about.")

Harry writes:
We need to make much clearer than we have so far the deep contempt we feel for Islam and the complete lack of concern we harbor for its future.

Yes! We could start by rounding up all Muslims right here in this country. Maybe send them to "reeducation" camps or some such. Show 'em what a true Christian Nation is all about. I wonder if there's already a blueprint for a nation to express its comtempt for a religion? That would be helpful.

Hey Jimmy! Name one other group in the world where a large number of its members would kill you as soon as look at you, and then dance over your corpse. And if more American muslims keep getting arrested for espionage and treason, it might be time to start watching your back.

Ah, leave it to the New York Times. The US image needs work among Arabs/Muslims? The logic is so easy. US bad, third world good. If flying airliners with women and children on board into skyscrapers isn't hostility begging to be annihilated, I not sure what would qualify. The American left truly is represented by the formerly great New York Times. Soggy reasoning and self-loathing at its best.

Harry-

How do you feel about the Crusades now?

Jimmy-

Re-education camps? That's a game you guys play, you know, sensitivity training here at home, concentration camps in places like Cuba. I agree with your instincts regarding the American way but it seems rather inconsistent considering the track record of what I assume to be your Party. Wasn't it you castigating "religions of hate" the other day? Where would Islam, as it has recently shown itself, fit in that category or is it especially reserved for Christianity?

Tom, I have never said anything against the Crusades, here or elsewhere.

In principle, I'm opposed to imposing religion by the sword.

In practice, at that time, Islam had cut off Europe from the rest of Asia. There were excellent non-religious reasons to take military action.

The military means were insufficient.

Once they became sufficient (no thanks to Christian obscruantism), Europe accomplished that mission by the back door -- most people have never heard of Albuquerque's victory at Oman, but that completed the Crusades successfully, didn't it?

Harry-

Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I would have sworn ythat you used the crusades as an example of the ruthlessness of Christianity. Again, I apologize if I am wrong.

Tom:

I could have sworn the same. Indeed, I could have sworn the same several times. Harry!!!

Nope, wasn't me.

I suspect you are lumping a bunch of ideas in a package and assuming that because a man holds one of them, he must hold all of them.

That is the way highly politicized people think, and most of the posters here, except me, are highly politicized.

You, Darwin, FDR and the steel advisor