Do Muslims around the world back Islamic radicalism and terrorism? We've been hearing a positive answer to this question for seven years now from a slew of right-wing pundits who seem to be making a very good living as Muslim-bashers. These pundits are big on anecdotes but small on data. Fortunately we are now in a position to answer them with the facts supplied in John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed's important book Who Speaks for Islam? If you haven't read this book, you cannot consider yourself properly informed on the topic.

Esposito and Mogahed cite Gallup data that shows that only 7 percent of Muslims consider the 9/11 attacks to be justified. The authors don't think that even 7 percent of the world's Muslims are ready to sign up for jihad. Yet any group of Muslims who approves of 9/11 is a group that I think we should worry about. These are the political backers of Bin Laden and his cohorts. Undoubtedly Al Qaeda hopes to recruit from this pool. We should be monitoring this group closely.

But let's at the same time recognize that this cohort is a tiny minority. Images of Palestinian activists celebrating 9/11 or radical Imams leading chants of "Death to America" are not representative of Muslim opinion. There are right-wing pundits who have been trying to foment a clash of civilizations by proclaiming typical Muslims to be radicals, but next time you hear this ask for convincing evidence to back up such allegations. Most likely you will get unrepresentative anecdotes.

The larger concern for Esposito and Mogahed is Muslims who reject terrorism of the 9/11 type but nevertheless hate the United States. This hatred, however, is not mainly derived from American support for Israel or America's alleged imperialist history. Nor is it because, as President Bush once put it, "they hate us for our freedom." Rather, Esposito and Mogahed trace Muslim anti-Americanism to the belief that the West in general, and America in particular, are conducting a "war with Islam." And when Muslims are asked why they think this, they point to three things.

First, they cite America's support for secular Muslim despots. Second, they point the finger at what they view to be anti-religious and immoral values disseminated through American popular culture abroad. Finally, they seize upon the statements of inflammatory Americans who say, as Lawrence Auster recently did, "The problem is not 'radical' Islam but Islam itself, from which it follows that we must seek to weaken and contain Islam." My former colleague at the Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson, seems to share Auster's view.

One wishes that self-styled Islamic experts like Auster (an attorney previously known for his efforts to reduce immigration in America) and Victor Davis Hanson (actually an expert on classical antiquity with excellent books on topics like the Peloponnesian War) would stop trying to launch the United States on a crazy secular crusade to undermine or transform the religious beliefs of Muslims, a group numbering well over a billion people. These pundits' analysis would be greatly improved if they learned to distinguish among Muslims.

No, guys: they don't all look alike and they don't all think alike. There are Islamic radicals who are our sworn enemies, and there are other Muslims who are being alienated from the United States because they want to rule themselves, they want to affirm traditional Islamic values in their countries, and also because they are disgusted with the anti-Muslim sentiments exhibited by people like Auster and Hanson.

Who Speaks for Islam?, written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, is one of the most important books on the War on Terror. In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us." This book, written by a leading scholar of Islam and the head of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, brings a wealth of real data to bear on this important subject.

The book is full of fascinating data on Islamic radicalism, on Muslim support for democracy, on the role of women, and on the values of Western popular culture. At first glance the results seem confusing: An overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects 9/11 style terrorism but a significant number of Muslims support the Palestine suicide bombers. Huge majorities of Muslims support democracy but reject the Western understanding of rights and liberty. In fact, a substantial majority of Muslims--including Muslim women--support some form of sharia or Islamic holy law. Most Muslim women want equal rights but even champions of those rights emphatically reject Western-style feminism.

What's going on here? Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans. Many Muslims who back Hamas do so because they see the group as fighting for Muslim self-rule.

On the other hand, Muslims reject what may be termed 1960s liberalism. They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination. Rather than import these "alternative lifestyles" into their society, Muslims want to live according to their own traditional values and elect their own governments that will defend Muslim interests.

Esposito and Mogahed shrewdly note that the values of traditional Muslims worldwide are very similar to the values of traditional Jews and Christians in the West. For instance, only around 15 percent of Muslims in Europe consider homosexuality "morally acceptable." That's way below the figures for the general public in Britain, France and Germany. But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.

Yes, I could say that I predicted all this in my book The Enemy at Home. But the great contribution of Esposito and Mogahed is to put a mountain of data behind these conclusions. Over six years their group has conducted tens of thousands of face-to-face surveys of Muslims in more than 35 countries making what they rightly call "the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done."

This book is a huge embarassment to conservatives like Victor Davis Hanson who, based on no data and very little familiarity with the Muslim world, have been portraying Muslims as violent theocrats who reject modern science, modern democracy and modern capitalism and spend most of their day performing honor killings and genital mutilations. This portrait of the Muslim world is about as accurate as that of a Muslim who believes that typical Americans live their daily lives according to the values of "Natural Born Killers" and "Brokeback Mountain."

What can we conclude from this book? First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.

Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong! It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims.

Obama opposes drilling in Alaska because he thinks it's a political ploy. Obama says the benefits of drilling may not be realized for five years or more.

Well, I guess politicians aren't allowed to think that far ahead, are they? Incidentally Clinton made the same argument, and that was more than 10 years ago. If we had started drilling then, we would currently be enjoying the benefits of home-produced oil, prices would be lower, and we would be that much less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Oil is now the fuel that drives the engine of Islamic radicalism. Remove the revenues of oil and the Muslim world would join sub-Saharan Africa as the least important part of the planet. Of course if America stops buying from them the Muslims would still sell to other countries. But who can deny that new sources of supply would reduce the global price of oil? And this would naturally reduce the surplus that is available to fund Islamic terrorism.

Currently about 40 percent of America's oil comes from domestic production, and the rest is imported. Approximately 20 percent of our oil imports are from Canada, and another 20 percent come from Mexico and South America. Africa--mainly Nigeria--accounts for another 20 percent. Remarkably, only about 15 percent of America's oil imports are from the Middle East.

What this means is that eliminating American reliance on the Muslim countries is an entirely reasonable objective. The problem is that America's oil needs are increasing, and domestic production is not keeping up. So we are becoming more dependent on imports.

McCain intends to reverse this. He's not insensitive to environmental concerns, and so rather than drill in the Alaskan wildlife reserve he intends only to drill offshore. Even so, he is being opposed by the Obama Democrats and some fanatical environmentalists. These naysayers are trying to convincing America that more oil from Alaska means no more glaciers and caribou.

This is a wild exaggeration and a false choice. And if Americans are forced to choose between lower gas prices and a few more caribou, is there any doubt how the vote would go? I think I am in the majority in saying that I don't mind caribou, but I really like my car. Caribou are nice to see but we need gas to drive out and see them.

Let's by all means drill off the coast of Alaska. At the same time, let's drill some sense into the liberal Democrats.

Postscript: More than one regular responder to this blog has commented that my percentage numbers add up to more than 100 percent, demonstrating my poor math skills. Re-read the post. It says that two-fifths of our oil comes from domestic production and the remaining three-fifths from imports. Then considering only the imports, I give the breakdown of what percentage comes from each foreign region. So there is no math error--or rather, the error is on the part of the posters, who would do well to read more carefully or enroll in basic math.

To me the right-wing blogosphere is so filled with venom and nonsense that I simply can't understand it anymore. It's like they live on a different planet. The planet where George Bush is a good president and we haven't started enough wars in the Middle East. But now they've topped themselves. They've come up with one of the most inane and insane boycotts in American history -- and what's crazier is that it worked! Find out about it here:





There are still some sane conservatives left in the country -- Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Charlie Crist (who McCain is considering for a VP spot), Ron Paul, Bob Barr and even Pat Buchanan. You can disagree with these folks, but they haven't lost their minds. For the most part they have valid and interesting opinions that are worthy of debate. But the same cannot be said of the right-wing bloggers. They sound like crazed zealots to me. I guess they probably view me the same way, and that's why it feels like we're not living on the same planet.

I leave it to you to decide who makes sense and who doesn't. I know some of the readers of this blog think the Michelle Malkins of the world are clear headed and the rest of us (progressives, moderates, centrists, etc.) don't understand the existential threat we face from Rachel Ray's scarf. I don't think I'll ever reach those people. But I take some comfort in the fact that it appears about 75% of the country has seen what this brand of conservatism has wrought -- and doesn't want any piece of it.

Watch The Young Turks Here and Check Out Our You Tube Channel Here

Each year, some two million Muslims from around the world make a pilgrimage to the holy site of Mecca. For some in the West, nothing could be scarier than two million Muslims, all dressed in white, touching their heads to the ground and shouting "Allahu Akbar." Reading the usual pundits, you get the idea that Mecca is a breeding ground of Islamic radicalism.

To figure out if this is true, a group of American researchers surveyed more than 1500 Pakistanis who went on the pilgrimage to Mecca in 2006. They discovered that these men had overcome great obstacles to make the trip. It costs arond $2500 to go to Mecca, and that's three times the annual salary of a typical Pakistani. Still, nearly 140,000 Pakistanis applied to go in 2006. Only 80,000 visas were granted by the Saudi government.

Since the Saudis granted their visas based on lottery, the researchers had the clever idea of comparing the attitudes of those who returned from Mecca to those who didn't get to go. They wanted to see if the pilgrimage to Mecca strengthened or undermined Islamic radicalism. Incredibly, the researchers found that the Pakistanis who went to Mecca returned with attitudes more moderate and less sympathetic to Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.

But isn't Mecca dominated by radical clerics who, when they aren't eating or sleeping, lead chants of "Death to America"? This is the propaganda you hear from groups like memri.org that selectively publish material intended to give an exaggerated picture of the influence of the Muslim radicals. In reality, the overriding theme of the visit to Mecca is the traditional theme of universal Muslim brotherhood.

No surprise: pilgrims returning fro Mecca were 25 percent less likely to hold that different tribes or ethnicities could not live in harmony. Remarkably, pilgrims were also more likely to believe that all religions can co-exist. Moreover, the Pakistanis who went to Mecca were less approving of suicide bombings and other such tactics as the Pakistanis who stayed back.

Call this the Mecca effect. I predicted it in my book The Enemy at Home, in which I argued that America can find common ground with traditional believers and not just anti-Muslim activists like Hirsi Ali. The results of the Mecca effet, and the study cited here, are beautifully outlined in a recent article in the online magazine Slate written by Professor Ray Fisman of Columbia University. You can read the article here.

Yes, I know that the Islamophobes will come back with their regularly-recyled quotations from the Koran about "killing all the infidels" and so on. But equally alarming quotations can also be found in the Old Testament. The important thing is to see how those texts have been interpreted and how people have acted upon them. Muslims have had many empires through the centuries: the Ummayad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. Tens of millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians have lived under Muslim rule. In any Muslim empire was it either policy or practice to systematically kill all the non-Muslims? No.

So we have to learn to think afresh and to take into account real evidence. Prejudice against practicing Muslims and against religious believers in general is rife in certain segments of Western society. But such prejudices should not be the basis of making public policy.

Last night in Orange County I had one of my liveliest debates with atheist Christopher Hitchens and the Jewish radio host Dennis Prager. The debate--a sort of Christian-Atheist-Jew slugfest--was held at the Bat Yahm synagogue in Newport Beach. There was a sellout crowd of 1,500, with about 400 turned away.

The debate was unusual in that it involved not two but three different perspectives. Hitchens was particularly harsh in his exchanges with Prager, at one point accusing Prager of covering up for anti-Semitism. My exchanges with Hitchens were consistently sharp but also mutually respectful, and later Hitchens told me that I am one of the most formidable debaters that he has ever faced. I predict this debate will generate huge interest when it is posted on the web. After the debate Hitchens joined my wife and me at the bar where we downed two bottles of Pinot Noir and solved many of the world's problems.

Since our debate focused on God as understood from a Christian, Jewish and atheist perspective, missing from the event was a Muslim perspective. This is a pity, because one staple item of atheist rhetoric is the equation of Islamic extremism with Christianity. In my cross-examination I pressed Hitchens on this issue, and will let viewers watch our exchange for themselves and make up their own minds.

We find the equation between "Islamic fundamentalism" and "Christian fundamentalism" not only among the new atheists but also in the popular culture. Several weeks ago Christiane Amanpour of CNN did her special on "God's Warriors." The premise: The Abrahamic religions all lead to extremism. So Amanpour did three segments, one on Islamic extremism, one on Jewish extremism and one on Christian extremism.

Striking to the viewer, however, was the strained attempt to equate the three. Islamic extremism featured the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid bombing, and the list goes on. What about Christian extremism? Well, there was Christiane Amanpour in desperate search for the Christian Bin Laden, the Christian Al Qaeda, the Christian Hamas, the Christian Hezbollah, the Christian state currently run along the lines of post-Khomeini Iran.

Poor Christiane came up empty handed. So she was forced to locate marginal groups which would be repudiated by 99.9 percent of Christians and try to pass them off as the Christian equivalent of the Islamic radicals. I was especially interested to find out that there is an old guy in the hills of Montana who wants to blow up the world in the name of Jesus. Too bad he's broke and doesn't have any teeth. Still, one day he hopes to get a job and carry out his nefarious plans. I suppose this is the closest thing to a Christian Bin Laden. We are all supposed to be very afraid of this man!

One of the new atheists very cleverly termed 9/11 a "faith based initiative." But the witticism conceals an intellectual sleight-of-hand. Bush merely wants the government to be able to support faith-based charities on the same basis as it supports secular charities. What happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon seven years ago can hardly be placed in the same intellectual category.

Of late some of the new atheists are backing off from their fraudulent analogy between Islamic extremism and Christianity. This is a powerful blow to the new atheism, because so much of its relevance came from its ability to surf on the wave of current events and interpret modern terrorism as the expression of a generic religious impulse. In reality Bin Laden is more accurately compared to an atheist despot like Pol Pot. I realize the analogy is not entirely fair--to Bin Laden! After all, Bin Laden's death toll (several thousand killed over a dozen years) doesn't come closer to Pol Pot's 2 million killed in the space of three years.

Besides, Pol Pot was a Little League atheist compared to Mao and Stalin, whose death toll was in the tens of millions. When it comes to mass murder in the modern era, Islamic radicalism simply cannot keep up with atheism.

The dinner party is never the same when the crazy old uncle who has been asked to stay in his room in the basement suddenly emerges and starts breaking the family china and chasing the teenage girls around the house. When the guests have left, the unavoidable question is: who let Uncle Jimmy out?

I've been thinking about this question in connection with former president Jimmy Carter's recent visit with the Islamic radical group Hamas. Condoleeza Rice says that the U.S. State department made it clear to Carter that Hamas is a terrorist group. U.S. policy is not to talk to terrorists. Carter says he got no clear message, since his telegram was not composed in all capital letters. And so Uncle Jimmy put on his best Sunday suit and decided to pay his Muslim friends a visit.

Actually, I don't agree with America's policy of "not talking" to these groups. Hamas won a free election in Gaza. If you want to address the issue of a Palestinian state, it's hard to exclude Hamas from the equation. Carter, however, is hardly the guy you want doing the negotiating. He hasn't been in office for a quarter of a century. He has no authority to speak for America. This tourism was entirely Uncle Jimmy's idea.

Carter says he was on a "fact finding" mission. And he did indeed return from the Middle East having learned some important new facts. 1) Hamas is made up of Muslims. 2) Hamas kills people. 3) Hamas doesn't like the state of Israel. I recall Carter's memoir written after his presidency which was full of similar great discoveries. Carter recalled the early days of his presidency when he got to do all kinds of exciting things: "Today I got to ride in my own White House airplane!" "Yippee! On Friday I get to meet Anwar Sadat!"

We all want to be nice to old Uncle Jimmy, given that he's in the sunset of his years and his judgment isn't so good. But then his judgment never was any good. Let's remember that it was Carter who, in the name of human rights, began in the late 1970s to withdraw American support for our ally the Shah of Iran. When the mullahs became emboldened, it was the Carter State Department that refused to sell the Shah tear gas to get these fanatics off the street. When the Shah's position weakened, it was Carter who encouraged him to abdicate. In trying to get rid of the bad guy--the Shah--America got the worse guy: Khomeini. This blunder gave radical Islam control of its first major state.

Are we going to make the same mistake again in Iraq? Yes, it's a bad situation over there, but are we going to try and solve the problem by pulling out and finding that the situation gets worse for them and for us? Carter is back at home and on his pills, but there is a new fellow running for president who sounds a lot like Jimmy. He's new and untested. His slogan is "change." He wants to wipe the slate clean in Washington, to purify us from our sinful past. He sounds more than a little self-righteous. The media and his followers think he wears a halo. And yet early indications are that he is not what he seems, and his political judgment can be immature and reckless. History may be repeating itself.

While on the debating circuit pounding atheists--a pastime I am really getting to enjoy--I have just started reading Dalia Mogahed and Esposito's Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. It's one of the first books to put some real data behind a much-disputed question. Go ahead and order the book here.

For several years now liberal and conservative pundits have been pontificating about the Muslim world, usually without a shred of data. I was amused last year to cross swords with some of my fellow conservatives like Scott Johnson and Victor Davis Hanson. These ideologues seem of the opinion that the average Muslim is a crazed polygamist who is ready to blow himself up. No surprise: this is supposedly what Muslims all learn in the school where they read nothing but the Koran! Only pundits who have no exposure to Muslim countries, Muslim history and Muslim people can go on like this.

For such gurus, Islam itself is the problem and nothing short of an Islamic Reformation headed by ex-Muslims like Hirsi Ali will show the Muslim world where it has gone wrong over the past five centuries. Forgotten in all this theorizing is the simple fact that Islam has been around for 1300 years and Islamic terrorism has been around for a few decades. The intelligent questions to ask are, what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of radicalism and terrorism? And second, what do most Muslims really think about the West?

Fortunately there is an increasing body of reliable data on Muslim beliefs. One source is the World Values Survey, which has the benefit of tracking opinions over a period of decades. Another is the Gallup surveys which are now under the aegis of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a group headed by Mogahed. Esposito is one of the most respected American authorities on Islam. I am only getting into their book, but here I offer my own hypothesis, and then I'm going to find out if their data vindicate it.

The problem for Muslims is not Christianity or Judaism. In fact, Islam sees itself as incorporating both in much the same way that Christianity sees itself as incorporating Judaism. The problem for most Muslims is liberalism. But here we must distinguish betwen two kinds of liberalism. There is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1. This liberalism is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, religious toleration, and so on.

Then there is the modern liberalism of the 1960s. Call this Liberalism 2. This liberalism is defined by such tenets as the right to blaspheme, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on. It is this second type of liberalism that seems to drive the social agenda of today's Democratic Party. For example, Hillary Clinton chaired a presidential task force during the 1990s that promoted prostitution as an international right for workers.

Now we are in a better position to understand Islamic attitudes regarding the West. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide embrace Liberalism 1 while rejecting Liberalism 2. They are generally comfortable with classical liberalism while abhorring the tenets of modern liberalism. And by equating America with such things as blasphemy, pornography, prostitution and homosexualty, the radical Muslims appeal to ordinary Muslims to join their cause in a battle against the Great Satan. This is what I have argued in my recent work and I'm interested to see how my thesis stands up in light of Mogahed and Esposito's data.

Of course today's liberals will chafe at the idea that their values are producing a powerful "blowback" from the House of Islam. That's why we need good empirical work like this book. Let us find out what Muslims really think, and then let us look at the propaganda of the radical Muslims to see how they rally traditional Muslims to their side. Who cares if liberals don't like to admit what is going on? People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When I proposed in my book The Enemy at Home (newly out in paperback) that America should ally with traditional Muslims to defeat the radical Muslims, some conservatives reacted with amazement. Where, these savants inquired, are the traditional Muslims? Clearly the exposure of some on the right to the Muslim world was limited to the viewing of clips of Bin Laden videos on the Fox News Channel.

Then last October a group of 138 Muslim scholars from diverse schools of thought wrote an open letter to Pope Benedict urging "mutual understanding" between Christianity and Islam. Titled "A Common Word Between Us and You," the letter notes that Muslims and Christians can find shared ground based on the dual commandments to love God and love our neighbor.

"As Muslims," the letter goes, "we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them--so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them, and drive them out of their homes." The letter was carefully worded so that it did not confuse clashes of interests with a war against the Muslim religion. In effect, the Muslim leaders were saying that their religious quarrel is only with atheists and other enemies of Islam.

Liberal Christians reacted to the letter with their usual abasement. Certainly some relief was in order, because Muslims who seek common cause with the West, or at least with the Christian West, are far preferable to those who seek to destroy us. Even so, why are liberal Christians so quick to prostrate themselves? "We want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in the war on terror) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbor...We ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world."

The Vatican, accustomed to dealing with Muslim diplomatic initiatives for centuries, responded with much greater caution. While welcoming the initiative to dialog, the Vatican's Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran stressed that genuine common ground requires reciprocity. So if Muslims want to have full rights of worship in Western countries, they should grant those same rights to Christians in Muslim countries. If Muslims have the freedom to build mosques in London and Chicago, Christians should be able to build churches in Islamabad and Amman.

One group of ignoramuses wants to wage an ideological war against Islam. Another group of sycophants wants to curry favor among Muslims, just so long as they abstain from bombing us. In between these two there is a sensible option: to negotiate respectfully but firmly with traditional Muslims, building on shared values but also insisting that justice and goodwill must come from both sides of the street.

I've never used the "Islamic Radicals" category yet on AOL, and I think Iranians driving speedboats around American battleships surely fits that definition. I am sure these Iranians won some sort of bet once they returned to shore.

Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation 'Provocative Act' Video Via al-jazeera

The Pentagon releases footage filmed from the USS Hopper showing Iranian boats heading towards the vessel as well as an audiotape of radio communications.

*updated Jan 10th: Turns out Iran has now also released their own version of the video from their perspective. BBC Reports.

In response to my blog yesterday noting that the cultural left opposes democracy in the Muslim world, several people expressed indignation. One challenged me to provide a single example. Others lugubriously noted that they favored the idea of democracy but alas it wasn't succeeding in Iraq. Certainly it does seem odd that a left which is always calling for "more democracy" in America would resist democracy in Muslim countries.

Yet it's true, and my book The Enemy at Home provides chapter and verse. For instance, the leftist author Robert Fisk resolutely opposed America's attempt to introduce democracy in Afghanistan. Incredibly Fisk said that the Taliban government should be kept in power because it had nothing to do with 9/11. Leftist Howard Zinn also equated America's displacement of the Taliban and holding of free elections with the 9/11 attacks themselves, as though both were equivalent crimes. Leftist legal scholar Richard Falk called for a "negotiated settlement" with the Taliban in order to protect the country's "sovereign rights." If leading leftists such as Edward Said, Toni Morison, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jane Fonda and Jim McDermott had their way, the U.S. would not have overthrown the Taliban government and Afghanistan would not have had free elections.

Immediately following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, leftist philanthropist George Soros warned that "I would consider Iraq the last place to choose for a demonstration project" in democracy. Why the Iraqis were ineligible to rule themselves, Soros did not say. When Iraq had its first free election, columnist Bob Herbert said it meant nothing because "a real democracy requires an informed electorate" while the Iraqi people were "woefully uninformed," apparently because they didn't make the choices that Herbert wanted. Leftist columnist Robert Dreyfuss said the Iraqi elections were invalid because "the Sunni community was tricked into voting" and moreover the elected Sunnis "do not represent the resistance." Apparently Dreyfuss thinks car bombers need representation too! Ivan Eland wrote in The American Prospect, "Spreading democracy doesn't reduce terrorism and, if anything, actually makes it worse." How democracy promotes terrorism, Eland neglected to explain.

Notice how the cultural left routinely condemns Bush for "hypocrisy" in using the rhetoric of democracy while the U.S. is allied with secular despots, but very rarely do leftists call for free elections in countries like Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. There was even some cheering on the left when Turkish generals threatened a coup to subvert the elected government from holding free elections a few months ago. So why does the left hate democracy in the Muslim world? The reason is simple. Muslims are socially conservative and generally want a greater role for Islam in their private and public lives. Consequently Muslim democracies are likely to be more conservative socially than they are when secular despots rule them. The left fears Muslim democracy because it is terrified of Muslim values, especially sharia or Muslim holy law. Feminists and gays are not likely to fare very well under Muslim holy law.

When Iraqis rejected secular candidates and voted for a party that pledged to have sharia, at least in some forms of domestic law, the New York TImes howled that democracy could be "consigning Iraqi women to a life of subjugation." Columnist Maureen Dowd warned that "the Iraqi election may actually be making things worse" because "it is going to expand the control of the Shia theocrats." These complaints might have some plausibility if women or Sunnis were not permitted to vote. But women and men both voted for the Dawa party, and so essentially the Times and Dowd were arguing that if Iraqis don't want equal roles for men and women, their democracy is a sham.

Bush's attempt to introduce democracy to Iraq, and to expand the role of democracy in Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan, is a brave and noble experiment. It might fail, and past historical experience is not promising. But if Bush succeeds we could see the beginning of an historical transformation no less significant than the transformation of the old Soviet Union. No wonder the left, not usually given to supplication, is praying very ardently this Christmas season that Bush does not succeed. If democracy fails, in Iraq and elsewhere, there is the added benefit that Democrats will have a better chance to take the White House in 2008.

In my book The Enemy at Home I quoted Benazir Bhutto saying, "Within the Muslim world, there is a reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture. America is viewed through this prism as an immoral society." This was one of the most astute explanations of why the propaganda of the radical Muslims has been so successful in recruiting traditional Muslims to the anti-American cause.

Bhutto's words were echoed also by the West's leading historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis. Reviewing what he calls "the standard litany of American offenses recited in the lands of Islam," Lewis ends with this one. "Yet the most powerful accusation of all is the degeneracy and debauchery of the American way of life." Many Americans, both on the right and the left, don't want to hear this message. And so we have been subjected to the same tired nonsense about how the radical Muslims are against freedom, oppose the Iraq invasion, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, the radical Muslims are upset about Iraq, but that's because Iraq is a pro-American Muslim democracy. Such a thing has not previously existed in the Middle East. It provides a startling alternative to the two kinds of tyranny that are widespread in the region: Islamic tyranny of the Iran variety, and secular tyranny such as we find with Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Assad in Syria, and in the Gulf Kingdoms.

Who doesn't want democracy to succeed in the Muslim world? Not counting the cultural left in America, there are two groups that are working overtime to subvert the democratic idea. The first is our enemies, namely the radical Muslims. These Bin Laden types would have an obvious incentive to kill Benazir Bhutto, and not surprisingly Musharraf has accused them of being the perpetrators of Bhutto's assassination. If Musharraf is right, the radicals did it in order to subvert the January election, destabilize Musharraf, and sow the seeds of chaos from which an extremist takeover becomes possible. This would be a nightmare prospect for the United States.

A second possibility is that Musharraf is himself behind the murder. After all, there is a second group that doesn't want democracy to work for Muslims. These are the secular despots who are allied with the United States. These thugs appeal for U.S. support basically by saying, "We are corrupt goons, but what is the alternative? Would you rather have the Bin Laden guys in power?" And typically the Americans heave a sigh and continue supporting what is perceived as the lesser evil.

Although Musharraf is no friend of democracy, and is hardly above wiping out one of the main opposition leaders, in this case it seems rather unlikely that he would be the culprit. The reason is that Musharraf runs the obvious risk that he would be blamed for the assassination, and now there are rioting crowds in Pakistan who are pointing the finger precisely in his direction. Also Musharraf gains from national stability, which has in the past allowed him to repel his opponents both from the democratic camp (such as Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto) as well as the Islamic radicals who sometimes use the language of democracy but seek to establish a Taliban-style government in Islamabad.

Who, then, is most likely behind the Bhutto assassination? Somewhere, I suspect, the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are smiling, having done it again through the mechanism of their suicide squads. And once again America is in a very awkward situation, having no choice now but to support Musharraf while quietly preparing for the possibility that his reign may come to an abrupt end.

I explain in the video below how the neo-cons and this Bush administration are so terrified of a small enemy they have completely exaggerated in their own minds. It's good thing these guys weren't in charge when the real Nazis were around, they would have wet their pants in fear and changed our whole way of life.



You can read more about how these current Republicans made up this silly concept of "Islamofascism" in the article I wrote today on our website. Real Americans fight for American principles, they don't run at the first sign of trouble. They don't change our constitution or our principles. This country's patriots didn't die so George Bush could give up and surrender American ideals to the enemy now.

Watch More Young Turks Here

CNN has been touting its program "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, and I see that the network is re-airing the three-part series this week. The program is skillfully done, and precisely for this reason it illustrates the deep bias that passes for "news" and "news analysis" in our time. Bias is most effective when it is not obvious but rather built into the assumptions of a program. Here's what I mean.

Imagine if CNN were to do a ten-part special on "Atheism's Warriors." The theme of the broadcast is the tens of millions of people killed by atheist regimes in our lifetime. The program begins with Christiane Amanpour noting how ironic and absurd it is that atheist pundits and ACLU lawyers wail about the crimes of religious regimes, crimes often stretching back five hundred or a thousand years, while these same gurus seem unmoved by the much more bloody legacy of atheist regimes of the twentieth century. Then follows a grisy account of the mass murders of Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, the Nazi regime in Germany, Pol Pot in Indochina, and so on. The special concludes with a focus on Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il, atheist dictators still alive and still killing people in the name of the atheist paradise.

Haven't seen that one on CNN? Neither have I. It's because the mainstream media have blinders on and cannot see the world in this way. Instead the producers and writers and anchors are much more alarmed about "God's Warriors." Now if they focused their critical lens on the Islamic radicals, this would be appropriate. Who can deny that Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad and Hamas and the others do what they do in the name of religion? CNN's ploy, however, is to give equal time to "Jewish fundamentalism" and "Christian fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" and thus implicitly convey the message that all three are equally dangerous.

But this is absurd. Let's just consider the analogy between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Who is the Christian equivalent of Bin Laden? There isn't one. Where is the Christian theocracy in the world today that is doing to its people what the mullahs in Iran are doing? It doesn't exist. Where are the Christian groups that are, like Hamas and Hizbollah, killing large numbers of innocents in the name of God? While violence in the name of Islam has unquestioned support in a substantial segment of the Muslim community, where are the Christians who are cheering the bombing of abortion clinics? Basically CNN has to go into the wilderness to find crackpots and then slyly suggest that these are the Christian equivalents of the holy warriors of Islam. The whole equation of contemporary Christianity with Islamic radicalism is a bogus enterprise from start to finish.

By all means watch "God's Warriors," but watch it as a case study in media distortion and media bias.