ONE OF THE PROBLEMS SELLING MY VIEW IS THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION. THAT CLOAKS IT WITH A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. RELIGIONS, AMERICANS GENERALLY BELIEVE, ARE GOOD. ALL HAVE THEIR FAULTS. MANY MILLIONS HAVE DIED IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY. MY VIEW IS THAT ISLAM IS, AS HITCHENS SAID, NOTHING BUT A TENTH-RATE PENAL CODE BUT SELLING THAT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.

THE ARGUMENT ABOUT ISLAMIC SUPPORT FOR US IS LIKEWISE GOING TO BE A DIFFCULT ONE TO OVERCOME. THIS IS THE KIND OF ARGUMENT THAT MAKES MY PROPOSAL SEEM IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO SUPPORT. LIKE SO MUCH ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION, THIS IS NEW FOR PEOPLE; IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. "IF I CAN GET PAST THE IDEA THAT WE ARE TO GO TO WAR WITH A RELIGION HOW CAN I RECONCILE THAT WITH THIS SUPPORT OF ISLAMIC COUNTRIES." THAT SEEMS TO DEFEAT MY POSITION ALL BY ITSELF. IT IS A HARD SELL. THE FACT IS THOUGH THAT ONE, IT IS THE PEOPLE IN THE ISLAMIC COUNTRIES THAT ARE SO AGAINST US, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENTS SAY. THAT IS PROVABLE BY THE SITUATION IN PAKISTAN NOW AND IN EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA TOO. BOTH OF THOSE GOV'TS ARE STAUNCHLY IN THE AMERICAN CAMP ON THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES BUT THOSE GOV'TS ARE REPRESSIVE AND MAINTAIN THEMSELVES IN POWER BY SANCTIONING THE INCULCATION OF THEIR PEOPLE IN THE MOST VICIOUS ANTI-AMERICAN AND ANTI-JEWISH PROPOGANDA. IT IS WORSE THAN USELESS TO HAVE FORMAL GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT BUT REAR A GENERATION IN ANTI-AMERICAN HATRED. THAT IS WHY SO MANY OF THE HIJACKERS WERE SAUDI.

THE POINT ABOUT THE INSTABILITY MY VIEW WOULD CREATE IS A VALID ONE. SAUDI ARABIA WOULD FALL, PAKISTAN WOULD FALL, EGYPT WOULD FALL. THE UAE, JORDAN--ALL OF THEM WOULD BE TURNED INTO RADICALIZED IRAN-LIKE STATES. THE VIEW BELOW WOULD HOLD THAT THE BAD FEELINGS TOWARDS THE U.S. ARE BAD ENOUGH RIGHT NOW, THAT THE ONLY WAY OF RIGHTING THEM IS TO BRING PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE ARABS AND TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS WHAT I PROPOSE.

IT'S MY VIEW, AN IMPOSSIBLE ONE TO SELL PERHAPS, THAT THE ISLAMIC WORLD IS IMPLACCABLE IN IT'S OPPOSITION AGAINST.US. BUT I MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONSEQUENCES HERE. WE WOULD HAVE TO OCCUPY THE ARAB OIL FIELDS. I ALWAYS ENVISIONED NATION-BUILDING AS WE DID AFTER WWII. OCCUPATION, AND A DRAFT TO SUPPORT IT, WOULD BE NECESSARY. WE HAVE HAD A GENERATION OF ATTACKS ON US, FROM IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, AND FROM EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA AS REPRESENTED BY THE 9-11 HIJACKERS. IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF CHANGING GOVT'S. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST US. BUT EVEN IF PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS, THEY WON'T USE IT AS A JUSTIFICATION OF THE MASSIVE MILITARY CONFLICT I PROPOSE.

THE ARGUMENT ON THE SIZE OF AL QUEDA IS SIMILARLY A POWERFUL ONE. IN MANIFOLD WAYS, THIS JUST DOESN'T "LOOK" LIKE WWII. PERHAPS THAT ANALOGY SHOULD NOT BE USED. IT MAY JUST ADD TO PEOPLE'S CONFUSION. MY RETORT WOULD BE ONE, THAT THIS IS THE WAY ISLAM HAS TRADITIONALLY FOUGHT AND TWO, WITH MODERN WEAPONRY IT IS NOT ONLY NOT NECESSARY TO FIGHT THE OLD MANPOWER-INTENSIVE WAY BUT IT IS STRATEGICALLY UNWISE. A SMALL MOBILE ARMY POSSESSING THIS MUCH LETHAL CAPACITY IS PROBABLY BETTER THAN A HUGE TRADITIONAL ARMY.

I DON'T KNOW IF AL QUEDA IS ALONE IN ATTACKING US. I THINK NOT BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A VALID POINT. IT IS NOT LIKE HAMAS, ETC ARE BRANCHES OF THE RED CROSS. THEY HATE US. THEIR RHETORIC PROVES IT.

MAYBE MY ONLY UNASSAILABLE POINT IS THE RHETORIC COMING FROM THE ISLAMIC WORLD. WORDS ARE NOT ACTION BUT IF MORE OF THESE WORDS WERE PUBLICIZED IN THE WEST MINDS MIGHT BE CHANGED.