Many Americans wonder why a large number of American Muslims oppose monitoring mosques and Muslim charities, phone wiretapping and airport profiling. Is it because American Muslims are unwilling to tolerate any personal inconvenience or intrusion on their privacy, even if it makes the country safer? Is it because American Muslims sympathize with terrorists, and they don’t want terror plots disrupted?

And many Americans wonder why many American Muslims opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it because American Muslims put the safety of their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq over the safety of their fellow Americans here at home? Is it because American Muslims want al-Qaeda to have bases it can use to strike America again?

It’s true that American Muslims care about their privacy and about Muslims overseas. But it’s also true that they don’t want to see America attacked, because America has given them freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the opportunity to make a living and take care of their families. In addition, the safety of American Muslims is intertwined with the safety of their American neighbors; American Muslims don’t want their families and friends to be blown up, which would happen if there are future attacks in the US. Furthermore, they don’t want to be victims of a backlash (discrimination, hate crimes, and restrictions on civil liberties), which would certainly follow future attacks in the US.

So why do so many American Muslims oppose U.S. government policies described as preventive measures against attacks on the US by perpretators portrayed as Muslims?

It’s simple. Many Muslims in America don’t believe that any Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that 60 percent of Muslims in America are not convinced that Arabs were involved in 9/11; 40 percent do believe Arabs were involved. Pew confirmed the findings of a poll, conducted on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, at the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention, which found that 62 percent of American Muslims are not convinced that Muslims were involved in 9/11; 38 percent do believe Muslims were involved. A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America found that 66% are not convinced that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks; 34% said Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The poll at the ISNA convention also showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that al-Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America. (And the poll showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that Muslims committed the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London.)

Many also believe that alleged plots discovered since 9/11 were set-ups by government informants, entrapping Muslims who posed no real threat to America. For example, skeptical Muslims cite the case of Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was found guilty of conspiring to blow up a NY subway station. Siraj claimed that he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was being paid by the NYPD. Siraj said the informant suggested the plot and incited him to act by showing him pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated and by saying he had received a fatwa allowing Muslims to kill American troops. Wary Muslims also cite the case of Hamid Hayat, who was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Hayat claimed he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Naseem Khan, who was being paid by the federal government. The informant encouraged Hayat to talk about fighting America, encouraged Hayat to attend a terrorist training camp, and cursed at Hayat when Hayat said he hadn’t yet attended the camp.

If Muslims weren’t involved in 9/11 or other plots, many American Muslims argue, there’s no need for the government to watch mosques, wiretap Muslim calls, or profile Muslims at airports. There’s no need for the government to torture alleged Muslim terrorists. And there was no need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pew study found that 74 percent of Muslims in America don’t believe America’s “War on Terror” is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. The poll at the ISNA convention showed that 68 percent of American Muslims believe the American government is at war with the religion of Islam.

American Muslims hesitate to publicly discuss their views regarding what really happened on 9/11, because they fear being further isolated and marginalized; after all, mainstream media and political leaders tend to mock anyone who questions the official 9/11 story. American Muslims also fear the government will investigate them if they speak out. (Pew found most Muslims in America say life has become more difficult for their community since 9/11, and most believe the government singles out Muslims for scrutiny.)

In private discussions in mosques and Muslim homes, American Muslims often argue that no “real Muslim” would have carried out such attacks against civilians. Furthermore, they say, the 19 young Muslims accused of being the hijackers could not have pulled it off. They could not have snuck knives onto four planes, successfully hijacked four planes using just those knives, and then flown three of the planes — unchallenged by US air defenses — into three buildings including the military headquarters of the US. Many American Muslims believe someone else, someone better connected, hijacked the planes, or that the planes were crashed into buildings by remote control. They also believe the World Trade Center was ultimately brought down by explosives.

The poll at the ISNA convention showed that most American Muslims believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur. The poll also found American Muslims almost evenly divided about whether the US government actually organized the 9/11 attacks, and also about whether the tapes of Osama bin Laden — claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks — are real or fake.

Angered by the American government’s perceived political and religious hostility towards Islam and Muslims before and after 9/11, skeptical American Muslims believe the government allowed 9/11 (or orchestrated 9/11) to justify greater domestic control over Muslims and invasions of Muslim countries.

This belief that the US government framed Muslims on 9/11 in order to justify further oppression of Muslims (including shutting down major American Muslim charities which used to benefit the poor in the Muslim world, and high-profile prosecutions of Muslims like Captain James Yusuf Yee who was wrongly accused of spying), creates significant tension and depression in the American Muslim community at the grassroots.

While the general public has never been polled about whether Muslims were involved in the attacks, many Americans have questions about 9/11. A 2004 Zogby International poll showed that 49 percent of New York City residents (whose city was attacked on 9/11) and 49 percent of New York State residents believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur.

A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that the US government and the 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence about 9/11, and 45 percent of Americans want Congress to re-investigate the attacks and whether any US government officials allowed the attacks. Ironically, few American Muslims are actively involved in the growing, self-proclaimed “9/11 Truth Movement.”

Does it matter that so many American Muslims, and other Americans, have such basic questions about such a significant event? Should the rest of the country care?

Our country generally marginalizes conspiracy theorists who reject the official story about any national tragedy, like the assassination of JFK.

So should America just write most American Muslims off as a bunch of kooks?

That would be risky.

After all, American Muslims are an important community when it comes to the “War on Terror.” Government officials often speak about the need for American Muslims to monitor their community and mosques for suspicious activity. And American Muslims can serve as an important bridge between America and the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism is growing. So it’s in America’s interest for American Muslims to feel like they are part of the American family, rather than outsiders.

But is there any common ground between American Muslims and other Americans on security issues? Is there any reason to think that American Muslims might be inclined to help protect America? Or are American Muslims innately hostile to America for religious and political reasons? Pew found that 61 percent of Muslims in America are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the US, and 76 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism around the world. In addition, the poll at the ISNA convention found that the vast majority of American Muslims oppose attacks within the US, and they would report plots if they learned about them.

If these American Muslims had believed that some Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if they had believed that there are some Muslims who continue to pose a genuine threat to everyone in America (including a threat to American Muslims), they may have actively supported some domestic and international security efforts after 9/11.

To bridge the gap between American Muslims and other Americans, Muslim organizations (local mosques as well as national organizations) around the country can provide public forums encouraging American Muslims to openly discuss 9/11. Thus far, these organizations — concerned about political correctness and fearful of government investigations of those who take unpopular views — haven’t facilitated such discussions.

Why would American Muslim groups benefit from hosting such discussions? Depending on these Muslim organizations’ perspectives, such discussions would either help American Muslims understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11, or such discussions would help the rest of America understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11. Such discussions would also be good for the mental health of many American Muslims, who keep their tensions hidden.

Of course, fearful American Muslim organizations will not take these steps unless the mainstream media and political leaders permit a safe space for discussion about these issues without marginalizing doubters as “kooks” or investigating them. The mainstream needs to “legitimize” the discussion for it to occur.

So what would these discussions, facilitated by Muslim institutions, involve? The same thing that segments of the country have already been discussing since 9/11.

For one thing, American Muslims (like many other Americans) need a history lesson. Many American Muslims are not well informed about the history of al-Qaeda and various attacks and plots around the world before 9/11. They don’t know about statements issued by al-Qaeda listing its grievances regarding American foreign policy. Nor are they familiar with the violent history of “jihadis” like Ayman al-Zawahiri. Many American Muslims had never heard of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Ladin, or Zawahiri before 9/11. So it looked to many American Muslims like 9/11 came out of the blue, and it looked to many American Muslims like the US government had simply created a Muslim bogeyman. Second, American Muslims need forums where they can raise all their technical and logistical concerns about 9/11, and get their questions answered. How did fires high above the ground cause the massive World Trade Center Towers to collapse? Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall apparently so small, and why is there no clear video footage of a plane hitting the building? Why didn’t fighter jets intercept any of the hijacked planes? Of course, many Americans have been publicly discussing these issues since 9/11, but American Muslims and their institutions have stayed out of these public discussions thus far.

Bringing these discussions into mosques and Muslim conventions will not erase all doubts. But it’s certainly much healthier for all doubts to be expressed openly rather than for them to be hidden, so that American Muslims can be exposed to various perspectives and new information. Regardless of how many minds are ultimately changed, American Muslims will feel more comfortable knowing their country is willing to hear them out. These discussions will be a useful outlet for letting out steam. And American Muslims may become more willing to go to bat for America, here and in the Muslim world.

And questions raised by American Muslims may encourage the country to further investigate nagging questions about 9/11, to help get the country on the same page.

Many other Americans may dislike the idea of letting unpopular American Muslims air their concerns about an issue as emotion-laden as 9/11. But it’s in America’s interest to bridge the gap between American Muslims and the rest of the country.

NOTE: Most Muslims living in the Muslim world are not convinced that Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
_____________________

KAMRAN MEMON, a Chicago-based civil rights lawyer, is the founder of Muslims For A Safe America. Muslims For A Safe America encourages honest and informed discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He can be reached at kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org

This article was originally published by Islamica Magazine in 2007.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration blamed Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks, and blamed the Taliban government in Afghanistan for providing a base for Al Qaeda. The U.S. then invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban government, helped set up and support an elected Afghan government, and continued to fight Taliban forces.

Now, nine years later, President Obama has tripled the number of American troops in Afghanistan to 95,000, but they are spread thin in some regions, and they cannot hold on to territory. The Afghan police and army are developing very slowly. The Obama Administration warns that the Taliban are taking back territory and making a serious comeback.

U.S. officials warn that if the Taliban retake Afghanistan, then Al Qaeda would again have a stable base from which to plot attacks against targets inside the U.S. In addition, U.S. officials warn that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be in a better position to expand their control and influence into other parts of Asia.

American allies have announced that they are not willing to leave their troops in Afghanistan indefinitely.

Many Afghans, and the Taliban, believe the U.S. will eventually abandon Afghanistan, just as the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, opening the door to a Taliban takeover in the 1990s.

American Muslims are a unique American community when it comes to the issue of Afghanistan. While most Americans supported the American invasion of Afghanistan, most American Muslims believed the invasion was unjustified. In addition, many American Muslims feel a religious connection to the Afghan people, as fellow Muslims.

Should America continue to send more troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to defeat the Taliban once and for all? Or should America cut its losses and begin to pull back?

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Send More Troops To Afghanistan And Try To Completely Defeat The Taliban

1. The 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa and the 9/11 attacks originated from Afghanistan. The Taliban government gave Al Qaeda a safe haven where Al Qaeda planned and prepared for these attacks. America asked the Taliban to turn Osama Bin Ladin over to America after the 1998 bombings and after 9/11, but the Taliban continued to protect Bin Ladin. America had to eliminate the Taliban government, and America must prevent its return.

2. Before 9/11, the Taliban were evil oppressors or ignorant Muslims who were misinterpreting Islam to justify a power grab. If America withdraws, there will be a bloody civil war; the weak Afghan military will collapse; and then the Taliban will eventually re-establish a government that will once again oppress the Afghan people, especially women, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities.

3. Al Qaeda’s recent attempts to attack America have failed, because Al Qaeda has been on the run, and it has been unable to effectively plan those attacks. Due to poor planning and execution, Al Qaeda’s bombs failed to detonate during the 2009 Christmas Day plot to bomb a plane flying to Detroit, and during the 2010 plot to bomb Times Square. If America doesn’t completely defeat the Taliban, the Taliban will allow Al Qaeda to re-establish training camps in Afghanistan to plan more effective attacks on American cities. In light of Al Qaeda’s many grievances about American foreign policy in the Muslim world, there will be more plots like these if Al Qaeda gets breathing room.

4. America must prove to friends and enemies that it doesn’t run from a fight. America must prove to the Afghan government and others that America is a reliable ally that doesn’t abandon its friends. America must prove to the Taliban and Al Qaeda that no one gets away with attacking the American homeland.

5. America has not yet succeeded in Afghanistan, because the Bush Administration did not put in the necessary resources. America can defeat the Taliban, now that America has a president who has made the war against the Taliban a priority.

6. America won’t be alone. The Afghan government will continue the fight against the Taliban if Afghan President Karzai is convinced that America will not abandon Afghanistan.

7. America won’t be alone. The Pakistani government did have ties to the Afghan Taliban, but once the Pakistani Taliban began attacking Pakistan in an attempt to overthrow the Pakistani government, the Pakistani government fully allied itself with America. Pakistan cannot allow American troops onto Pakistani territory, because the Pakistani people are suspicious of American motives; but Pakistan is doing what it can, by allowing the U.S. to launch missile strikes (from un-manned Predator aircraft) onto Pakistani territory.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Cut Its Losses And Withdraw From Afghanistan

1. The 9/11 attacks did not originate from Afghanistan. They originated from the CIA or Israeli intelligence, in order to “justify” the invasions of Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, American troops should never have been in Afghanistan. Even if the 9/11 attacks did originate from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda based on the Taliban’s understanding that Al Qaeda were sincere Muslims who needed shelter. After Bin Ladin was accused of carrying out the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa, America asked the Taliban to turn Bin Ladin over to America. The Taliban said they would turn Bin Ladin over to America if America provided evidence that Bin Ladin was involved, but America provided no evidence. Regardless, the Taliban ordered Bin Ladin not to use Afghan soil to plan international attacks, and Bin Ladin agreed. The Taliban were not involved in planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. When America asked the Taliban to turn Bin Ladin over to America after 9/11, the Taliban again said they would turn Bin Ladin over to America if America provided evidence that Bin Ladin was involved in the 9/11 attacks. America refused to provide the Taliban with any evidence, so the Taliban refused to turn Bin Ladin over to America. Therefore, the U.S. should have just attacked Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, rather than overthrowing the Taliban government and trying to restructure the whole country.

2. Before 9/11, the Taliban were making a sincere effort to establish an Islamic state based on their understanding of Islamic law. Even if the Taliban were (and may again be) oppressive, America should not be sacrificing the lives of American soldiers, or American tax dollars, to protect Muslims from their own oppressive governments. Furthermore, many Muslims don’t want non-Muslim soldiers on Muslim land. American invasions of Muslim countries produce much more death and destruction than they prevent.

3. America has made a huge investment in building the Afghan army. It’s time for that investment to pay off. When American troops pull back, the Afghan army will keep the Taliban on the run. Furthermore, if there are no American troops in Afghanistan, fewer Afghans (like Najibullah Zazi, who pled guilty in the 2009 NYC subway plot) or Pakistanis (like Faisal Shahzad, who pled guilty in the 2010 Times Square plot) will try to attack American cities. (Both Zazi and Shahzad said they planned their attacks because of American intervention in Afghanistan.)

4. America has already proven that it will respond with severe force to an attack on the American homeland. There is no need for American troops to stay in Afghanistan forever.

5. It is not possible for America to defeat the Taliban. After nine years, the Taliban have proven themselves to be tough on their home turf and elusive. The Taliban fight and then melt away among the Afghan and Pakistani people. Then they strike again, and melt away again. They don’t plan to beat America militarily. They are just playing a waiting game, knowing that America cannot stay in Afghanistan forever.

6. America does not have reliable partners in the region. The Afghan government wants to cut a power sharing deal with the Taliban (because Afghan President Karzai believes America is not a reliable ally).

7. America does not have reliable partners in the region. The Pakistani military has been fighting the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan, but Pakistani intelligence has been arming, training, and funding the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan (to ensure that the Afghan Taliban are friendly to Pakistan if the Afghan Taliban return to power in Afghanistan). The Pakistani government does not allow American troops to enter Pakistani territory to fight Afghan Taliban who are retreating from Afghanistan into Pakistan, where they regroup for new attacks against American troops in Afghanistan. In August 2010, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said that the international community was losing the war against the Taliban because America and its allies had “lost the battle to win hearts and minds” in Afghanistan.

In some ways, John McCain and Barack Obama are very similar, and they share a similar worldview, which may make some American Muslims uncomfortable. Both believe that America is threatened by some Muslim groups and that Al Qaeda is a very serious threat to America. However, they differ about the best way to fight the war against Al Qaeda.

The War on Terror is a challenging subject to discuss with Muslim audiences, because our community is divided on the issue of whether or not any Muslims were involved in 9/11 and whether Al Qaeda is real. These are significant issues, because if Muslims were not involved in 9/11, and if Al Qaeda is not real, then the “War on Terror” is misdirected. On the other hand, if Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if Al Qaeda is real, then the “War on Terror” makes more sense.

The “War On Terror” issues are presented in two main categories: foreign policy issues and civil liberties/domestic security issues. The issues are presented in alphabetical order.

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

Afghanistan
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11, because Afghanistan was Al Qaeda’s base. The U.S. quickly overthrew the Taliban government, but then America turned its attention to Iraq. Now, seven years later, Afghanistan remains unstable and violent, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are getting stronger. American military commanders say America doesn’t have enough troops to significantly increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan. There are four times as many American troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

MCCAIN:
Considers Afghanistan to be a secondary priority in the War on Terror, after Iraq. Says more American troops are needed in Afghanistan, but will not send additional American troops to Afghanistan, as long as the troops are needed in Iraq. Believes that NATO allies should send more troops to Afghanistan. Would prefer more training for the Afghan National Army and the Afghan police, rather than sending more U.S. troops.

OBAMA:
Believes that Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror, because Al Qaeda is based in Afghanistan and getting stronger. Wants to withdraw American troops from Iraq, in part so that more American troops can go to Afghanistan.

Iran
The U.S. has accused Iran of aiding anti-American forces in neighboring Iraq, and of seeking to develop nuclear weapons which could threaten America and Israel, and which could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Both McCain and Obama say Iran must stop supporting Shia forces fighting American forces in Iraq, and that Iran must not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. Both McCain and Obama support diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to stop enriching uranium which could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Both McCain and Obama say they will not take the military option off the table.

MCCAIN:
Says the only thing worse than war with Iran would be an Iran with nuclear weapons. Made a joke during the Republican primary about bombing Iran. Opposes presidential dialogue with Iranian leaders, because he thinks such a dialogue would boost the credibility of Iranian leaders.

OBAMA:
Supports presidential dialogue with Iranian leaders to try to resolve differences and reach a comprehensive settlement on all issues. Prepared to offer Iran normal diplomatic relations as part of a comprehensive settlement. Says that if dialogue doesn’t work, America will be in a stronger position to win international support for tougher sanctions.

Iraq
America invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003. The Iraqis have elected a democratic government, but there are tensions between Sunnis and Shias. Parts of Iraq remain unstable and violent.

MCCAIN:
Supported the invasion. Criticized the Bush Administration for mismanaging the war and for not initially sending enough troops to establish security in Iraq. Supported the troop surge which has contributed to increased stability in some regions, and believes the surge has encouraged Iraqi political leaders to start making political decisions that will bring the country together. Considers Iraq to be the central front in the War on Terror. Opposes a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq, because he says withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground; thinks American troops should only withdraw after Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated, after Iraq is politically stable, and after the Iraqi military is able to protect the country. Concerned that an early American withdrawal would lead to civil war, genocide, and a failed state that could become an Al Qaeda safe haven. Concerned that an early American withdrawal from Iraq would strengthen Iran’s position in the region. Concerned that early withdrawal would lead to an increased risk of attacks in America, because the enemy would “follow us home.” Wants to maintain a long-term American military presence in Iraq, even after America wins the war, just as American troops have been in Germany and Korea for decades, because an American military presence could help America accomplish its other regional goals.

OBAMA:
Opposed the invasion. Was not in the Senate before the war began, so he did not vote on the issue. Opposed sending more American troops to Iraq, even when Iraq became unstable. Has not tried to cut funding for the war. Believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has strengthened Iran, because Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran, and he has been replaced by a Shia-led government in Iraq. Doesn’t believe that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror, because the 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, and because the Al Qaeda leadership is in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, not in Iraq. Supports a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq; thinks most American troops should withdraw within one-and-a-half years after he takes office, in order (1) to pressure Iraqi leaders to take charge of security in Iraq, (2) to pressure Iraqi leaders to make political compromises necessary for future stability among Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, (3) to prevent U.S. military resources from being stretched too thin, (4) to free up military resources to use in Afghanistan, and (5) to free up billions of dollars every month to meet America’s domestic needs. Says some American troops would remain in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and to train Iraqi troops. Says America would have no permanent bases in Iraq. Says American troops might return to Iraq in the event of genocide in Iraq.

Pakistan
After 9/11, Pakistan supported the U.S. effort to overthrow the Taliban government in neighboring Afghanistan and to capture various Al Qaeda members. However, in light of the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region, the U.S. government has raised questions about Pakistan’s commitment to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan does not allow American troops on Pakistani soil. Both McCain and Obama have criticized Pakistan for not taking sufficient action against Al Qaeda or Taliban bases in Pakistan that are used to launch attacks in Afghanistan.

MCCAIN:
Opposes threatening to cut aid to Pakistan. Says the U.S. must convince Pakistan that the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban is in Pakistan’s best interests. Says the U.S. must provide more support to strengthen friendly tribes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border who can fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Supports more U.S. aid for development, health, and education in Pakistan to weaken the pull of radicalization. Has criticized Obama for openly saying Obama would take unilateral American military action against high-level Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan without Pakistan’s approval; McCain does not oppose such military action, but he believes that American leaders should not publicly state they will violate the sovereignty of an ally.

OBAMA:
Will make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional depending on Pakistan’s progress in closing down Al Qaeda and Taliban activities in northwestern Pakistan. Has said America will unilaterally attack high-level Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Pakistan cannot or will not deal with the targets. Supports more U.S. aid for development, health, and education in Pakistan to weaken the pull of radicalization.

Palestine/Israel
The U.S. government has favored the Israelis over the Palestinians since Israel’s establishment in 1948. America’s pro-Israel stance has been cited by Al Qaeda as one reason for its attacks on American targets. Both McCain and Obama say America is committed to Israel’s security. During the July 2006 Lebanon war, both McCain and Obama insisted that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire until Israel’s objectives were accomplished. Both McCain and Obama say the Israel-Palestinian peace process is a high priority, and both say they will take an active role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Both McCain and Obama say they will not deal with Hamas.

MCCAIN:
Says the U.S. should recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but he would not object if Israelis and Palestinians agreed to make part of Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state.

OBAMA:
First he said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, and that no part of Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state; then he backed down after Palestinians protested that the status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiations. Has expressed sympathy for the suffering of ordinary Palestinians. Says a better life for Palestinian families would ultimately be good for Israelis and Palestinians. Has said that his many conversations about Palestine/Israel with former University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor, were “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. … It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation … that is necessary … [around] … this entire world.”

CIVIL LIBERTIES/DOMESTIC SECURITY ISSUES

Detentions of “Enemy Combatants”/Guantanamo
Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has held hundreds of detainees at a detention center located at an American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Detainees have been held outside the U.S. in order to prevent them from accessing U.S. courts. Both McCain and Obama support closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

MCCAIN:
Supports using a military legal process for determining whether detainees actually posed a threat to America; says that classified evidence (which is unavailable to detainees) and coerced statements should not be used against detainees in military legal proceedings. Opposes giving detainees the right to go to federal court to challenge the evidence for their detentions.

OBAMA:
Supports giving detainees the right to go to federal court to challenge the evidence for their detentions, after initial decisions are made in the military legal process. Also supports closing secret American prisons in other countries where detainees are held without trial.

Domestic Information Gathering
After 9/11, Americans concluded that they needed better intelligence about the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Democrats and Republicans, gave the FBI (1) the authority to secretly search Americans’ homes and offices, with no obligation to promptly notify the target after the search; (2) the authority to obtain Americans’ private records (telephone, e-mail, medical, financial, credit, employment, library, and other records) from third parties without the approval of a judge; these records could be obtained without evidence of the target’s involvement in a crime, as long as the FBI claimed the records were relevant to a terrorism investigation; these FBI orders could not be disclosed to anyone by the recipients of the order or challenged in court; and (3) the authority to wiretap any location or phone that might be used by the target of surveillance, even if those wiretaps were likely to pick up the conversations of other Americans. Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act with limited changes in 2005 and 2006. Both McCain and Obama believe that the government needs to be able to gather intelligence about Al Qaeda and threats to the U.S.

MCCAIN:
Voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001. Did not actively work to address civil liberties issues relating to the Patriot Act. Voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006.

OBAMA:
Was not in Congress in 2001, so he did not vote on the Patriot Act, but he said the Patriot Act should be repealed and replaced with better legislation. After being elected to the Senate, he worked to increase civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act. As a result of his efforts and the efforts of other Senators, (1) Congress required the government to notify targets within 30 days after a secret search, but this time period could be extended by a judge; (2) Congress put in safeguards when the FBI sought access to private records. The order to provide private records had to be authorized by higher level FBI officials, not just field agents. Recipients of orders were allowed to inform their attorneys and to challenge the orders in court; and (3) Congress required the FBI to focus more closely on the specific target of the wiretap, and to minimize capturing the conversations of other Americans. Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act after the above-mentioned civil liberties protections were added.

Warrantless Domestic Wiretaps
From the end of 2001 until January 2007, without court approval, the Bush Administration searched for evidence of terrorist activity by monitoring international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of Americans and others inside the United States, who were thought to have some connection with terror suspects. After significant controversy, in 2008, Congress passed a new law reaffirming that the President could not spy domestically without a warrant, requiring an investigation of the domestic wiretapping that previously occurred, and giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had previously cooperated in warrantless wiretapping. But no immunity was given to government officials.

MCCAIN:
Says he is unsure whether the Administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping was legal or not. In 2008, voted against an amendment that would have removed immunity for telecom companies, and that amendment failed. Supported the final legislation but was not present to vote.

OBAMA:
Says the Administration’s warrantless domestic wiretapping was illegal. In 2008, voted for an amendment that would have removed immunity for telecom companies, but that amendment failed. Voted for the final legislation, saying he would try to get the telecom immunity removed later.

Torture
The Bush Administration has acknowledged using coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. However, the Bush Administration denies that any of its techniques rise to the level of torture. Both McCain and Obama say they oppose the use of torture.

MCCAIN:
Opposes the use of any physical force by military interrogators. Voted to allow CIA interrogators to have greater flexibility than military interrogators, but said that no interrogation should be cruel, inhumane, or degrading, and no interrogation should involve “extreme” techniques. He specifies waterboarding as an impermissible “extreme” technique. Voted to narrow the definition of “war crimes” and to give immunity from prosecution to Americans who have used “lower-level” coercive interrogation techniques (other than torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages).

OBAMA:
Missed the vote on whether CIA interrogators should have greater flexibility than military interrogators, so it is unclear whether he believes any physical force is permissible. Voted against narrowing the definition of “war crimes” and opposed giving immunity from prosecution to Americans who have used “lower-level” coercive interrogation techniques.

Muslims For A Safe America is a 501(c)(3) organization based in Chicago. Our mission is to educate American Muslims about national security issues, so that (1) American Muslims can resolve the tensions they feel because their country is at war with some of their fellow Muslims around the world, and so that (2) American Muslims can become informed, effective participants in the national discussion about what domestic policies and what foreign policies will make America and the Muslim world safer. We educate American Muslims primarily through a mock debate format, and we have held mock debates at mosques around Chicagoland. If your mosque or organization would be interested in scheduling a mock debate, please contact us at 200 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1240, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 961-2354, kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org. Muslims For A Safe America does not receive funding from any government agency or any foundation; we operate solely based on small contributions from individual supporters.

The U.S. government, which has given Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid to support American military operations in Afghanistan since 9/11, has called on Musharraf to end the state of emergency and move towards democracy and the “rule of law.”

Under international pressure, Musharraf has agreed to hold parliamentary elections in early 2008, but he has not agreed to end the crackdown on the judiciary, the press, and political opponents.

If the “rule of law” is fully re-established, the removed Pakistani Supreme Court justices will be reinstated, and they will probably invalidate Musharraf’s recent presidential election victory, removing him from the presidency.

If the “rule of law” is partially re-established, the new Pakistani Supreme Court justices will remain on the bench, and they will validate Musharraf’s recent presidential election victory, allowing him to serve as president.

Either way, parliamentary elections will be held, and Pakistanis will elect either Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan’s two most prominent politicians) as prime minister.

America, which has prioritized the “War on Terror” since 9/11, must decide how hard to push for the full restoration of the “rule of law” in Pakistan. Should America push for full restoration of the “rule of law” (including restoration of the old Supreme Court, which would lead to Musharraf’s removal as president)? Or, if that’s too risky, should America seek limited restoration of the “rule of law” (i.e. free and fair parliamentary elections without restoration of the Supreme Court, allowing Musharraf to remain as president)?

In light of American power and influence, many grassroots Pakistanis and many Muslims around the world believe that American pressure will impact the outcome in Pakistan.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Promote Full Restoration Of The “Rule Of Law” In Pakistan (Which Would Lead To Musharraf’s Removal As President)

1. Musharraf is not an asset for America in the “War on Terror.” He has been unsuccessful in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which have been defeating Musharraf’s Pakistan Army in northwestern Pakistan, near the Pakistan-Afghan border. In fact, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have gotten stronger on Musharraf’s watch. In 2006, Musharraf agreed to a cease-fire which allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup and re-establish training camps to prepare for attacks against American targets. Musharraf also agreed to free captured Taliban who had allegedly been involved in planning suicide bombings against Pakistani targets, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Pakistani troops captured by the Taliban. Keep in mind that Musharraf’s government was one of only three governments around the world that had diplomatic relations with the Taliban in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (until 9/11).

2. Pakistan’s two most popular political parties, Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Sharif, have committed to fighting against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. After free and fair elections, one of these parties will come to power (or they will come to power together). These parties will have no choice but to support America’s “War on Terror” if they want American military aid (and other benefits) to continue.

3. The Pakistan Army is Pakistan’s most powerful institution. Segments of the Pakistan Army are becoming dissatisfied with Musharraf, in light of the Army’s casualties in the “War on Terror” and in light of Musharraf’s crackdown on civil liberties. So the Army may favor a change in Pakistan’s leadership.

4. If America doesn’t promote the full restoration of the “rule of law,” that will further damage America’s relationship with the Muslim world. First, grassroots Pakistanis will turn against America. They will blame America for Musharraf’s ability to stay in power and his ability to deny them “the rule of law,” the same way the Iranian people turned against America in the 1970s because of America’s support for the dictatorial Shah. Second, grassroots Muslims around the world will become more convinced that America doesn’t really care about the “rule of law” or about what happens to the average Muslim, as long as America’s own objectives are met.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Promote Partial Restoration Of The “Rule Of Law” In Pakistan (Which Would Lead To Musharraf Staying In Power As President)

1. Musharraf is an asset for America in the “War on Terror.” Since 9/11, Musharraf’s Pakistan Army has helped America capture key Al Qaeda leaders, and Pakistani soldiers have made a serious effort to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

2. A completely civilian Pakistani government may not be a reliable American ally in the “War on Terror.” Many grassroots Pakistanis believe that America’s “War on Terror” is not in the best interests of the Pakistani people; civilian rulers, who might be more responsive to the people than Musharraf is, may be less willing to continue the fight. Civilian rulers may decide that Pakistani soldiers don’t need to die just because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are making a comeback; after all, Al Qaeda attacked America, not Pakistan, on 9/11. Keep in mind that Pakistan’s civilian government was one of only three governments around the world that had diplomatic relations with the Taliban in the 1990s. (Pakistan’s democratically-elected leaders have not always gone along with America. For example, Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons under civilian governments in the 1990s, despite American opposition.)

3. The Pakistan Army is Pakistan’s most powerful institution. Military leaders may oppose a return to civilian rule, especially if they believe that the main civilian alternatives are corrupt and unconcerned about the welfare of the Pakistani people. (Keep in mind, the Army has repeatedly overthrown Pakistan’s elected leaders.) If Musharraf is weakened, other generals may take over Pakistan (and its nuclear weapons), and they may be unfriendly to America.

4. It’s more important for America to have a reliable ally ruling Pakistan, than for America to be popular with average Pakistanis or average Muslims around the world. Anyways, America does not need to rock the boat, because things will sort themselves out in Pakistan. The new Supreme Court will validate Musharraf’s presidential election victory. Then Musharraf will be comfortable lifting restrictions on the press and political opponents. New parliamentary elections will be held, and a new prime minister will be selected. The Pakistani people will go back to their lives. Over time, Pakistanis and other Muslims around the world will forget about this “state of emergency.” And Musharraf’s Pakistan Army will continue to support America’s “War on Terror.”

In December 2007, American intelligence agencies stated that Iran stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration warned that as long as Iran continues to enrich uranium, Iran could restart its nuclear weapons program in the future.

Since learning about Iran’s secret uranium enrichment program after 9/11, the Bush Administration has warned that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. Iran says it is enriching uranium only for peaceful purposes (to produce electricity). Under international agreements, countries are permitted to enrich uranium to produce electricity. However, if Iran successfully enriches uranium for electricity, it could use that enriched uranium to later build a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating experiments, purchases, and weaponization studies carried out by Iran, but the IAEA says it has no definitive evidence of an actual nuclear weapons program. The IAEA says the earliest Iran could build a nuclear bomb is 2010.

Relations between America and Iran have been tense for decades. Iranians remember that America helped overthrow the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and helped replace him with a dictator, the Shah, who denied the Iranian people freedom. Americans remember that Iranians overthrew the Shah, replaced his pro-American dictatorship with an anti-American theocracy, and took American embassy officials hostage in 1979. Iranians remember that America supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran during the 1980s. Americans believe Hezbollah (which is supported by Iran) killed 241 U.S. soldiers in a bombing in Lebanon in 1983. America has refused to recognize Iran’s theocratic government for the last 27 years.

Today, Shia Muslim Iran, Sunni Muslim countries, non-state actors (like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda), and America compete for influence and power in the Muslim world, and they view each other as obstacles and threats. For example, the Bush Administration says Iran supplies weapons and training to anti-American forces in Iraq; Iran denies this and says America should leave Iraq and stop interfering in the Muslim world. Iran accuses America of supporting militias launching attacks inside Iran. Iran supports Sunni groups (Hamas in Palestine) and Shia groups (Hezbollah in Lebanon) which America considers terrorists; America supports Israel, which Iran sees as an illegitimate Western colony on Muslim land.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Attack Iran

1. If Iran had nuclear weapons, those weapons would pose a threat to Americans (including American Muslims). Iran could launch a nuclear strike against America or give nuclear weapons to others (like Al Qaeda) who want to attack America. Even if Iran doesn’t attack America, Americans (including American Muslims) will constantly live in fear of a nuclear attack, just as Americans lived in fear of a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War.

2. An American attack on Iran would be relatively easy and would not require American ground troops. Air strikes and missile strikes could destroy known Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets. There would be few American casualties.

3. Iran could not seriously retaliate against America after an American attack. Iranian military facilities would be destroyed by the initial American attack. In addition, Iran doesn’t have missiles that can reach America.

4. Allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon would worsen the situation for America in Iraq. America believes that Iran currently supports anti-American forces next door in Iraq (while Iran believes that America supports Iranian opposition forces attacking Iran from Iraqi territory), but Iran would be free to openly interfere in Iraq to a greater degree if it had the protection of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would also embolden anti-American Shia forces (like the Mahdi Army) in Iraq to step up their resistance to American troops.

5. Iranian nuclear weapons would pose a threat to Israel. President Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped off the map. If a nuclear Iran attacked Israel, the entire region would be destabilized, and America would be drawn into a war.

6. Attacking Iran is the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is not working. Although the previous Iranian administration was willing to talk to the U.S. about various issues, the current Iranian administration has refused to negotiate with America. America supported a Russian offer to enrich uranium for Iran so that Iran could use the enriched uranium for peaceful purposes and then return it to Russia, but Iran refused that offer, preferring to keep its own enriched uranium. In addition, sanctions are not working, because the world community is not united in imposing sanctions, so Iran can get whatever it needs somewhere in the world. The longer America waits to attack, the closer Iran gets to a nuclear bomb.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Not Attack Iran

1. Iran will not use nuclear weapons offensively against America. First, Iran does not have missiles that can reach America. Second, even if President Ahmadinejad wants a fight, the collective leadership of Iran is not suicidal. The clerics, who hold the real power, know that an Iranian nuclear attack on America would result in a larger American nuclear attack on Iran. Furthermore, the clerics would not provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda, which is an anti-Shia organization. Nor would they provide nuclear weapons to Shia organizations (including Hezbollah), because Iran would pay the price for a nuclear attack by Shia groups. Iranian nuclear weapons would be intended solely to deter an American or Israeli attack on Iran, and to deter potential American attempts at regime change in Iran. America co-existed with, and outlived, a nuclear Soviet Union; America can do the same with a nuclear Iran.

2. A successful American attack on Iran would be extremely difficult. America does not know where all of Iran’s nuclear facilities are. To maximize the chances of destroying all Iranian nuclear facilities, American ground troops would need to occupy the country and find the facilities, but American ground troops are already stretched thin in Iraq. It’s unlikely that other nations would be willing to provide ground troops either. American air strikes and missile strikes could destroy known nuclear targets, but an angry Iran could continue its nuclear program in secret facilities that survive an American attack.

3. An American attack on Iran would make America less safe, because groups backed by Iran would launch small-scale attacks in America and against American targets (including oil and gas targets) around the world. In addition, Al Qaeda would exploit increased worldwide Muslim anger to recruit agents and raise funds for more attacks against America.

4. An American attack on Iran would worsen the situation for America in Iraq. Iran would respond to an attack by attacking American troops in Iraq and trying to cut off their supply lines. An American attack on Shia Iran could also alienate America’s Shia allies in Iraq.

5. President Ahmadinejad favors eliminating Israel through elections (a “one-state solution”), not war. Furthermore, Iranian nuclear weapons would not pose a threat to Israel, which already has nuclear weapons. Iranian clerics, who know that Israel would retaliate for a nuclear strike, would not initiate a suicidal nuclear attack against Israel. Iranian nuclear weapons would promote stability in the region by creating a balance of power and deterring attacks against Iran by Israel and by hostile Sunnis. A balance of power would encourage nations in the region to resolve disputes peacefully in the future.

6. America has not fully used diplomacy and sanctions to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Regarding diplomacy, after 9/11, Iran (under the previous Iranian president) repeatedly tried to build bridges with America. After Iran helped America defeat the Taliban in next-door Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush Administration responded by including Iran in the “axis of evil.” When Iran offered to open a dialogue in 2003 to try to resolve all disputes between the two countries and normalize relations, the Bush Administration refused to talk to Iran. After America learned about Iran’s nuclear program, America offered to negotiate with the current Iranian Administration regarding Iran’s nuclear program, but only if Iran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment before such talks. Iran is opposed to talks with such preconditions. America should negotiate with Iran without preconditions. There are things Iran wants; for example, Iran wants to end almost three decades of isolation by getting America to recognize Iran’s government and end America’s policy of seeking regime change in Iran. In exchange for that, Iran might give up its nuclear program and make other concessions. Regarding sanctions, Iran already has economic problems. Economic sanctions (like restricting investment in Iran) can put great pressure on the Iranian government. Restricting Iranian access to outside technology and components can make it impossible for Iran to build a bomb. America has time to give this peaceful track an opportunity to work, because it will be 3-8 years before Iran is able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Sunday, July 22, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

America, which has a long history in the Muslim world, is at war with a violent, self-proclaimed Islamist movement. As a result, thousands of Americans and Muslims have died in recent years, and thousands more will die.

Just last week, it was reported that the most comprehensive intelligence assessment of the threat to the United States since 9/11 had found that al-Qaida and related groups have grown stronger.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Many Americans believe that American foreign policy toward the Muslim world had nothing to do with 9/11. They argue that al-Qaida would have attacked America even if America had no contact with Muslims because al-Qaida seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate.

It’s true that al-Qaida wants an Islamic caliph to rule the planet, but why does al-Qaida attack powerful Western countries which have intervened in the Muslim world, rather than weaker Western countries which have had neutral relations with Muslims? And why do some Muslims sacrifice their wealth and lives to launch these attacks?

If America had not provided military support over the decades to help keep the Saudi monarchy in power, and if the Saudi people had been permitted to govern themselves, anti-American hostility would not have been widespread in Saudi Arabia today. Instead, a frustrated Saudi Arabia produced Osama bin Ladin and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers. The same is true of American support for Egyptian dictators; Egypt ultimately produced much of bin Ladin’s inner circle and one of the 9/11 hijackers.

If America had not helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and replaced it with a pro-American dictator, there probably would have been no Islamic Revolution (and no American hostages) in 1979. Today, it’s entirely possible that a democratic Iran would have been a friend of America.

If America had been an honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians over the decades, showing genuine sympathy for both sides, much of the Muslim world would not have concluded that America loathes Muslims.

And of course, if America had not invaded Iraq after 9/11 and instead had set out to repair relationships with Muslims, it is likely that the threat from al-Qaida and like-minded groups would be shrinking instead of growing.

America has had its reasons for the decisions it has made. But decisions have consequences; if America had made other decisions, and if America had chosen to simply trade with Muslims instead of meddling so forcefully in their politics, a more developed Muslim world probably would have been pro-American today.

In a Muslim world focused on economic and political development, there would have been no popular support for attacking Americans. If a would-be caliph had asked for volunteers to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, he would have found no takers. Why would Muslims want to fight an old friend?

Yes, it’s true that there are verses in the Koran (or Recitation) which can be interpreted to call for world domination. Yes, it’s true that, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, early Muslims fought wars and expanded the Islamic empire. Yes, it’s true that, in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Muslim pirates attacked American ships near North Africa for religious and economic reasons.

But the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that the Koran demands world domination, and there had been no effort to attempt it for well over a century — until American intervention angered the Muslim world.

Now, as America faces off against a deadly enemy, understanding how we got to this point could help America drive a wedge between al-Qaida and its Muslim supporters.

Does understanding history mean that I’m excusing the actions of terrorists who kill innocent Americans? Does understanding history mean I think America should be soft on terrorists plotting to blow up American trains or buses or shopping malls?

No and no. I’m an American Muslim by choice. I ride trains and buses, and I shop in malls. I don’t want to die or have my limbs blown off.

But it’s frustrating to see the political discourse dominated by American elites who pretend that American foreign policy toward Muslims has had nothing to do with the amount of anger in the Muslim world. If Muslims attack America, these elites argue, it’s solely because of who the Muslims are, not because of what America has done to them. Or, as President Bush has put it, “They hate us for our freedom.”

This point of view marginalizes anyone who seeks to understand America’s relationship with the Muslim world. For example, at a recent debate among Republican presidential candidates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mocked Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for saying that al-Qaida attacked America on 9/11 in reaction to prior American intervention in the Muslim world. The audience cheered Mr. Giuliani, and the other candidates piled on.

By burning bridges to the Muslim world over the decades, these elites have made me and my family, and all other Americans, less safe.

It may not be too late to rebuild them. But time is running short and the casualties are mounting.

Kamran Memon is a Chicago civil rights attorney and founder of Muslims For A Safe America (muslimsforasafeamerica.org).

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to challenge Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon. After an 18-year occupation, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, but Hezbollah has continued to seek (1) Israeli withdrawal from the disputed Shebaa Farms region, (2) disclosure by Israel of the locations of live landmines that Israel left in southern Lebanon, and (3) release by Israel of prisoners.

In July 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers in Israel, killing three soldiers, wounding two soldiers, and capturing two Israeli soldiers, with the intention of using them as a bargaining chip. Israel responded by attacking Hezbollah targets and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, in order to destroy Hezbollah and prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel again. Hezbollah responded to the Israeli bombing campaign by launching rockets into Israel. Hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli bombs, and almost 50 Israeli civilians have been killed by Hezbollah rockets.

Hezbollah says it wants Israel to be replaced by a Palestinian state where Muslims, Christians, and Jews have equality. Hezbollah, which has seats in the Lebanese parliament and ministers in the Lebanese government, says it seeks to use democratic means to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The War Is Making America Safer

1. The destruction of Hezbollah would be a blow against all jihadists, because Hezbollah is part of a global jihadist movement which includes Al Qaeda (which has targeted America). Furthermore, the U.S. believes that Al Qaeda officials met with Hezbollah officials, and that Hezbollah gave Al Qaeda some explosives training, in the 1990s.

2. Hezbollah was hostile to America in the 1980s. The U.S. believes Hezbollah (which opposed American intervention in the Lebanese civil war) was responsible for killing 241 U.S. soldiers in a bombing in Lebanon in 1983, and for killing 17 Americans in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in 1983. In the 1980s, Hezbollah also kidnapped 18 Americans in the Middle East, and killed the CIA station chief.

3. America must fight all jihadists, even if they don’t pose a threat to the U.S., because America must help its allies (like Israel) in their wars, if America wants them to help with America’s war against Al Qaeda.

4. There is no risk of the war expanding and drawing American troops in. Even if Israel accidentally strikes Syria, Syria will not enter the war, because its military is weak. Furthermore, Iran doesn’t want to fight Israel now, because Iran wants to be able to continue its nuclear program. So the war will remain limited to Hezbollah and Israel.

5. The deaths of Muslim civilians in Lebanon will not harm America. The Muslim masses will blame Hezbollah (not America) for those deaths, because Hezbollah started this crisis by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and because Hezbollah puts Muslim civilians at risk by placing its command and control centers, weapons stockpiles, and missile sites in civilian areas, knowing that Israel will attack those areas. Furthermore, Al Qaeda would try to attack the U.S., even if the U.S. had demanded an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon.

6. The destruction of Hezbollah would weaken Iran (which sponsors Hezbollah), and prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region. The destruction of Hezbollah would also eliminate an obstacle to a future Israeli or American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

7. America must do whatever is in Israel’s best interests, because Israel is America’s best ally in the Middle East.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The War Is Not Making America Safer

1. The global jihadist movement did not attack America on 9/11. Neither did Hezbollah. Al Qaeda attacked America. Shia Hezbollah is a rival of Sunni Al Qaeda, which is America’s real enemy. Hezbollah criticized Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America. Hezbollah does want an Islamic government to come to power through elections in Lebanon, but it does not share Al Qaeda’s goal of driving America out of the Muslim world and establishing an Islamic state in all lands that were ever under Muslim rule. So the destruction of Hezbollah doesn’t help America.

2. Hezbollah poses no present-day threat to America. Hezbollah has not targeted Americans in the Middle East since the 1980s. Hezbollah has never targeted Americans outside the Middle East. The FBI says there is no evidence that Hezbollah seeks to attack targets in America. (Hezbollah has raised funds in the U.S., but not for operations against American targets.)

3. Hezbollah threatens Israel, but not America. By taking sides in other people’s wars, America unnecessarily makes more enemies, making us less safe.

4. If the war expands, American troops could be drawn in. Israel is bombing Lebanese targets not far from the Syria-Lebanon border. If a bomb accidentally hits Syrian territory, Syria will enter the war. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, so Iran will be drawn in. Then the U.S. may be drawn in.

5. The deaths of Muslim civilians in Lebanon have increased anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, because Muslims blame America for arming Israel and preventing a ceasefire. This makes it easier for Al Qaeda to raise funds, from those who might otherwise have been hesitant, and recruit agents to attack American targets.

6. By staying in the fight against powerful Israel, Hezbollah has strengthened its position in the Muslim world, among Sunnis and Shias. Hezbollah’s increased popularity strengthens its ally, the Iranian government, and anti-American Shia forces in Iraq.

7. The war is hurting America’s relations with the Muslim world. America would have many good allies, in addition to Israel, in the Middle East if America made an even-handed attempt to help all parties in the Middle East resolve their grievances.

NOTE: During the war, two-thirds of Americans believed that the United States should not have favored either Israel or Hezbollah.

When Muslims tried to pick their own leaders, the U.S. government was unsympathetic. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. President Bush’s father stood silently by as the Algerian military prevented democratically-elected leaders from taking power in Algeria in the early 1990s.

After 9/11 highlighted anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, President Bush declared in November 2003 that the U.S. would reverse its policy. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.”

President Bush has partly justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds of spreading “freedom and democracy.” He has also called on allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and hostile states, like Iran, to allow more “freedom and democracy.” In addition, he has said that spreading “freedom and democracy” will counter Al Qaeda’s vision of a “heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East.”

However, America continues to provide significant support to friendly non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims around the world are suspicious that the U.S. remains committed to controlling and dominating, not freeing, the Muslim world.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Promote “Freedom and Democracy”

1. The U.S. should peacefully promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries currently ruled by friendly dictators. Propping up these dictators has turned Muslims in those countries against America and pushed them towards Al Qaeda. One of Al Qaeda’s main selling points in the Muslim world is that the U.S. props up dictatorships. If the U.S. stops propping up dictators, that will reduce Al Qaeda’s ability to raise money and recruit human resources. Furthermore, the risks of propping up friendly dictators are high, as America learned in Iran. If Muslims in various countries succeed in removing American-supported dictators without America’s help (as Iranians did in 1979), that could bring extremely anti-American forces to power. But if America peacefully encourages friendly dictatorships to become democratic, America will be viewed by Muslims in those countries as a liberator; this will generate a lot of goodwill for America. American support for civil society initiatives (independent courts, free press, civic groups, etc.) prior to elections will help create political alternatives to right-wing religious parties. Even if right-wing religious parties come to power, Muslim democracies are unlikely to threaten America; elected Muslim leaders will be accountable to their people and concerned about their people’s needs at home. (For example, Hamas came to power through elections in Palestine, but Hamas poses no threat to the U.S.) Furthermore, given the choice, Muslim voters may like the idea of an Islamic state, but not the idea of a right-wing, Al Qaeda caliphate.

2. The U.S. should fight to promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by hostile dictators. America’s use of military force to replace unfriendly dictatorships with democracies in the Muslim world can win Muslim friends for America. For example, many Afghans and Iraqis are enjoying new freedoms and the opportunity to pick their own leaders and write their own laws. Elected leaders of different sects and ethnicities are sitting down to peacefully work out differences. This will lead to greater human development and a better future for these countries. Many Afghans and Iraqis, and other Muslims, give America the credit for this. Furthermore, if American troops leave once democracies are established, that will reduce suspicion that America seeks to dominate the Muslim world.

3. America has an obligation to help Muslim countries eliminate their dictatorships, because, in many cases, America propped up those dictatorships and helped make them so strong that the Muslim masses may not be able to eliminate them on their own.

4. Muslims want to choose their own leaders. Early Islamic governance was based on consensus (shura), not dictatorship. Muslims have been denied self-government for so long by colonialism and outside interference (including American interference). When outside interference has been absent, Muslims have established their own democracies, as in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, and Turkey. Even Muslims who want to be governed by Islamic law want to choose leaders who will interpret or implement the law for them; they don’t want leaders imposed on them.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Not Promote “Freedom and Democracy”

1. The U.S. should not promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by friendly dictators. America is more secure with friendly dictators in power. Dictators, who are dependent on the U.S., are more easily controlled and more reliable allies. Democracies, on the other hand, are unpredictable. Encouraging “freedom and democracy” in friendly dictatorships could open the door for right-wing religious parties to come to power. (For example, Hamas came to power through elections in Palestine.) These groups would be more likely to challenge the U.S. and be less supportive of the War on Terror; they might even support Al Qaeda. Furthermore, American support for “freedom and democracy” will not necessarily reduce anti-American hostility in friendly dictatorships; it will simply be seen as another form of American interference in the Muslim world. Al Qaeda and its supporters will continue to target America, because American involvement will continue to interfere with their effort to set up a right-wing, Al Qaeda caliphate.

2. The U.S. should not fight to promote “freedom and democracy” in Muslim countries ruled by hostile dictators. If those dictators need to be removed by force, they should be replaced with reliable dictators. America’s use of military force to bring “freedom and democracy” to Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, has created more enemies for America. Many Muslims around the world have been angered by the deaths of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, which occurred after the dictators were removed. Furthermore, many Muslims viewed these invasions as an American attempt to control the Muslim world for religious, military, and economic reasons; they believed that American efforts to promote “freedom” were an attack on Islam, because “freedom” meant encouraging Muslims to stray from Islam. In addition, democratization hasn’t worked in Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, parts of Iraq and Afghanistan remain violent and unstable, and civil war in Iraq remains a long-term possibility. Authorities in parts of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to abuse their power and violate the rights of citizens. Iraqis have voted along ethnic and sectarian lines, and their elected representatives are having trouble working together and resolving their differences. Furthermore, promoting “freedom and democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost thousands of American soldiers their lives; thousands more have been maimed; and America has spent billions of taxpayer dollars overseas that could have been better spent here at home on homeland security. Adding insult to injury, America has been blamed for problems of poor governance or lack of development (caused by poor security) in Afghanistan and Iraq. All this could have been avoided with the imposition of reliable dictators early on.

3. The U.S. should not interfere in any way in the Muslim world. The Muslim masses should choose their own path. America should mind its own business and allow Muslim countries to develop democracy on their own, if that’s what Muslims want. Anything associated with America is tainted in the minds of many Muslims overseas, so American democracy efforts will give democracy a bad name and undermine grassroots proponents of democracy in the Muslim world.

4. Very few Muslim countries are free or democratic. Many Muslims do not want “freedom and democracy,” and the U.S. cannot effectively impose “freedom and democracy” on people who don’t want it. Many Muslims oppose “freedom and democracy” on the grounds that all laws are made by God, and any human being who seeks to make laws is usurping God’s authority.

When Israeli governments previously refused to recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state, the U.S. did not cut off aid (or encourage other countries to cut off aid) to pressure Israel to recognize Palestine’s right to exist.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Deny Aid To The Hamas Government

1. America can use financial aid as leverage to pressure Hamas to make policy changes that would bring stability to the Middle East. The U.S. should not fund Hamas and strengthen Hamas, if the U.S. disagrees with Hamas’ vision.

2. If America funds the Palestinian Authority, those funds could be used by Hamas to attack Israel and make the region less stable.

3. America can help needy Palestinians without helping Hamas. America can channel humanitarian aid to needy Palestinians through NGOs and private charities, rather than through Hamas.

4. The U.S. has designated Hamas a terrorist organization, because Hamas’ Charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and Hamas has targeted Israeli civilian and military targets.

5. Although Hamas poses no direct threat to the U.S., the U.S. needs the cooperation of other countries in the War on Terror, so it must cooperate with those countries in their fights against terrorism. Furthermore, America needs a reliable non-Muslim ally in the Muslim world, so the U.S. must protect Israel from threats.

6. Hamas has killed Israeli-Americans in Israel.

7. Hamas has intentionally killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in almost 60 suicide bombings since 2000. Although Israel has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, they were “collateral damage” in strikes against enemy targets. Israel does not deliberately target Palestinian civilians, and Israel seeks to minimize the number of Palestinian civilian casualties.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The U.S. Should Provide Aid To The Hamas Government

1. The U.S. does not use American financial aid as leverage to pressure Israel to make policy changes that would bring stability to the Middle East; by pressuring only one side, the U.S. sends the message that it favors Jews over Muslims. The U.S. will be respected in the Muslim world only if it pressures both parties, or neither party. Furthermore, cutting off American aid opens the door for other states, like Iran and other Muslim nations, to fill the gap. This would reduce America’s influence, and increase the influence of other states. Engagement is best way for America to influence Hamas’ policies.

2. Without American funding, the Palestinian government’s security services could collapse; a lack of security forces in Palestine would make the region less stable.

3. Cutting off American aid to the Palestinian Authority could lead to a humanitarian crisis in Palestine, because that aid is used to provide services to the needy.

4. The U.S. has named Hamas a terrorist organization, even though Hamas has never targeted the U.S. Despite America’s support for Israeli attacks on Hamas, Hamas has never threatened to attack America or American targets. Hamas poses no threat to America’s national security.

5. American involvement in other people’s conflicts makes unnecessary enemies for the U.S. When the U.S. takes the side of people of other faiths against Muslims, it allows Al Qaeda to paint America as anti-Muslim, which helps Al Qaeda’s recruitment and fund-raising. If America were neutral in such conflicts, it would have many more friends in the Muslim world, and Al Qaeda would be much weaker (and possibly non-existent).

6. Although Israeli-Americans have been killed in Hamas attacks overseas, that doesn’t mean Hamas is at war with America. After all, Palestinian-Americans have been killed in Israeli attacks overseas, but that doesn’t mean Israel is at war with America. (In fact, Israel has actually attacked the U.S.; in 1967, Israel engaged in a lengthy attack on the USS Liberty, killing 34 American servicemen.)

7. Hamas has largely abided by an informal cease-fire with Israel since early 2005. Furthermore, Israel has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, but America continues to fund Israel, so why should Hamas be treated differently? Israel claims that it seeks to minimize the number of Palestinian civilian casualties, but Israel engages in military operations, in crowded Palestinian cities, that are guaranteed to produce Palestinian civilian casualties. Israel has “unintentionally” killed many times more Palestinian civilians than the number of Israeli civilians intentionally killed by Hamas. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports of Israeli soldiers killing or crippling Palestinian civilians who posed no threat.

Iran has had a limited nuclear program for 17 years. It will take another seven to ten years for Iran to develop nuclear capability. Iran cannot develop nuclear capability without outside help.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That Iran Should Develop Nuclear Weapons

1. Iran views America as an enemy and a potential threat. The U.S. says it has the right to preemptively use nuclear weapons against “rogue states.” Therefore, Iran needs a nuclear deterrent, to prevent the use of American nuclear weapons against Iranian civilians. Any war between America and Iran is less likely if both are nuclear powers, because then they are more likely to try to resolve their differences peacefully. Iran is aware that the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, which did not have nuclear weapons, but the U.S. avoided military confrontation with North Korea, which has nuclear weapons. An Iranian nuclear weapon would mean less American leverage over Iran.

2. Iran’s neighbors — China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Russia — are nuclear powers. In particular, Iran views Israel as an enemy and a potential threat. Iran needs nuclear weapons to create a balance of power and ensure peace (through nuclear deterrence) in the region, and to prevent the use of regional nuclear weapons against Iranian civilians. Any war between Iran and its neighbors is less likely if all are nuclear powers, because then they are more likely to try to resolve their differences peacefully.

3. If other nuclear powers disarmed, Iran would not need nuclear weapons. However, no country is going to eliminate its nuclear weapons, because every country wants an edge. Nuclear disarmament is not even on the radar of the American people. It was not an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. Furthermore, if it’s God’s plan for the world to end in a nuclear war (Doomsday), how can human beings avoid that?

4. The use of nuclear weapons might violate Islamic law, but possession of nuclear weapons would not violate Islamic law. Iranian nuclear weapons would never be intended for use; they would just be a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons against Iranian civilians.

5. Just because a Muslim country has nuclear weapons does not mean those weapons will fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. Pakistan has not given its nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda. Furthermore, Iran is unlikely to allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, because they are ideological rivals; Al Qaeda wants to establish a Sunni Caliphate, while Iran is a Shia state. (In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq is at war with Shias in Iraq.)

6. In light of the “Clash of Civilizations,” the Muslim world needs as many nuclear powers as possible, to avoid domination by others. Iran may not be able to count on Pakistan’s “Islamic bomb,” if the two countries have differences, or if Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities are destroyed. Iran has said it would share its nuclear technology with other Muslim countries.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That Iran Should Not Develop Nuclear Weapons

1. America views Iran as an enemy and a potential threat. An Iranian nuclear weapon would make Iran a more dangerous enemy, potentially putting the lives of Americans (including American Muslims) at risk. In addition to being able to eventually strike the American homeland, Iran could use (or threaten to use) nuclear weapons against American forces in the Middle East. Iran could also threaten American allies and jeopardize American access to cheap Middle Eastern oil. An Iranian nuclear weapon would mean less American leverage over Iran.

2. Israel views Iran as an enemy and a potential threat. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel. America is committed to the protection of Israel. If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, America could be drawn into a nuclear war, potentially putting the lives of Americans (including American Muslims) at risk.

3. Nuclear weapons are dangerous, and they open the door to nuclear war, even by accident; that could destroy the world (Doomsday). It is better to create a worldwide movement to disarm all nuclear powers rather than allow Iran to go nuclear. Conventional weapons are sufficient for each country’s self-defense.

4. Nuclear weapons violate Islamic law, because they would certainly kill noncombatants.

5. Al Qaeda has expressed an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. Iranian nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, which would use such weapons against America. Even though Al Qaeda and Iran are ideological rivals, they have a common enemy: America.

6. Pakistan already has an “Islamic bomb,” so it can protect the interests of Muslims without Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Since then, the Iraqi people have elected a parliament and voted on a Constitution. But Iraq remains violent, with Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters attacking U.S. forces, Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians, and Iraqi infrastructure, with no end in sight.

There was barely a peep from the Muslim world or American Muslims about the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam’s rule, but many Muslims have been vocal in their opposition to the American invasion of Iraq.

As the American death toll and military expenditures continue to rise, Americans are divided about whether the invasion made America safer, and about how soon to bring U.S. troops home.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That Invading Iraq Did Not Make America Safer

1. Saddam did not pose a threat to the U.S. He had no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American invasion in 2003. Due to previous disarmament and U.N. sanctions, Saddam did not even have the capability to develop WMD.

2. Saddam was not working with Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, states on page 66, “The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen any evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

3. Invading Iraq damaged America’s reputation, reduced post-9/11 sympathy for America, and increased support for Al Qaeda in the Muslim world. Invading a Muslim country that had not attacked America reinforced the Muslim world’s impression that America seeks to dominate the Muslim world, and that America is willing to kill innocent Muslims in the process.

4. America’s presence in Iraq has strengthened Al Qaeda. Before the invasion, there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and no chance that Iraq would become an Al Qaeda client state. The invasion boosted Al Qaeda’s recruiting, by helping Al Qaeda argue that the U.S. seeks to conquer the Muslim world. Since the invasion, Iraq has become a training ground for foreign fighters flooding in from other countries; they are getting hands-on training which they can use against other targets, including the American homeland, later. If American troops leave, Al Qaeda will find less support, because many foreign fighters are motivated by hostility to the U.S. Iraqi forces, supported by a peace-keeping force from Muslim countries, will be able to establish security and stability in democratic Iraq.

5. Invading Iraq distracted America from pursuing Al Qaeda and strengthening Homeland Security. America has spent treasure and blood on Iraq that should have been spent on finishing the job against those who attacked America on 9/11. The Iraq invasion also took resources away from Homeland Security; for example, the Bush Administration has not given sufficient resources to police and fire departments to help them prepare for future attacks. Nor are there enough resources to check all cargo containers coming into the country.

6. The behavior of some American troops towards Iraqi detainees and unarmed civilians has generated anger against America.

7. The Iraq invasion was one motivation for the Madrid and London bombings. The invasion could make it easier for Al Qaeda to find human resources and financial resources for future bombings in America.

8. The invasion has exposed the limits of the American armed forces and the limits of the American public’s political support for wars. After Afghanistan, America was united and looked unstoppable. America’s inability for two years to defeat the insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq, and America’s related inability to secure electricity and water for Iraqis, has exposed the weakness of America’s armed forces. Even following major operations to drive insurgents and foreign fighters out of various cities, the insurgents and foreign fighters inevitably return.

9. The invasion has over-stretched America’s military and distracted America’s attention from more serious threats, like countries that actually have or are developing weapons of mass destruction.

10. It’s debatable whether the shutting down of Libya’s nuclear program in December 2003 was a direct result of the invasion. Libya began negotiating with the U.S. in 1999 regarding shutting down its nuclear program.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That Invading Iraq Did Make America Safer

1. Saddam became hostile to the U.S. after American forces attacked Iraqi forces in the 1990 Gulf War. Although Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction in 2003, he had previously demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons (against the Kurds and Iranians). Furthermore, Saddam could have developed WMD in the future if he remained in power, especially if U.N. sanctions were eased. That risk was too high for the U.S. to take.

2. Although Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, he did have dealings with Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report, released in 2004, states on page 66, “The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.” There could have been more cooperation between the two in the future, if Saddam remained in power. That risk was too high for the U.S. to take.

3. Saddam brutally ruled over the Iraqi people for 23 years. For several of those years, he was supported by the U.S. government. By freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam’s brutal dictatorship in 2003 and helping establish an Islamic democracy, America showed Muslims around the world that it is now committed to a better life for average Muslims.

4. Because of the American invasion, Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds have been able to sit down together to try to hammer out their differences. If America succeeds, Iraq will become a model, inclusive, Islamic democracy in the Middle East, and it will open the door for further democratic reforms in the region. That will benefit the Muslim masses and make America safer. If America fails, Iraq will become a right-wing, Al Qaeda, Sunni-dominated Islamic state, and it will open the door for Al Qaeda to establish a right-wing Khilafah throughout the region. Furthermore, America’s credibility will be damaged due to its inability to finish what it started. That will make America less safe.

5. The Iraq invasion has not prevented America from continuing its worldwide fight against Al Qaeda. Nor has the invasion prevented America from securing the homeland; there have been no attacks in the U.S. after the Iraq invasion.

6. There have been isolated incidents of improper conduct by American troops; some American soldiers have been convicted. Many Iraqis have had positive dealings with American soldiers, and that has improved America’s image.

7. Al Qaeda would have sought to attack America with or without the Iraq invasion, because of hostility to America’s foreign policy in the Muslim world.

8. America has not defeated the insurgents and foreign fighters yet, because America has shown restraint in its tactics. This is not a sign of weakness. If America were willing to use the full extent of its power, it could defeat the insurgents and foreign fighters quickly. But America wants to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties.

9. The invasion sent the strong deterrent message to the world that America will act preemptively when America believes it is threatened.

10. After observing the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Libya shut down its nuclear program in December 2003, making America safer.

Like Al Qaeda, many American Muslims are also angry about American foreign policy, and the suffering of average Muslims, in the Muslim world.

But many American Muslims do not support Al Qaeda’s vision for the Muslim world.

Al Qaeda wants the U.S. to leave the Muslim world, so that it can establish its own version of an “Islamic state” or Caliphate.

While many American Muslims want to see secular democracies in the Muslim world, many other American Muslims don’t object to the establishment of an Islamic state (or states) in the Muslim world. But what is an “Islamic state”? American Muslims don’t agree on what an Islamic state should look like. The only thing they agree on is that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) established an Islamic state in Medina. But American Muslims understand the example of the Prophet in very different ways. Some American Muslims look back at Medina and see a very conservative model; others see a more progressive model in Medina. We’ve seen various models of self-proclaimed Islamic states in modern times: Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

In Al Qaeda’s ideal Islamic state, how would women be treated? How would people of other faiths be treated? How would the poor be treated? How would Muslims of different sects be treated? How would people accused of crimes be treated? Al Qaeda operated for years in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Is that the sort of Islamic state Al Qaeda envisions for the rest of the Muslim world? Many American Muslims would prefer a more progressive Islamic state.

If America leaves the Muslim world, and if average Muslims in the Muslim world (who want freedom and the right to pick their own rulers) reject Al Qaeda’s vision, will Al Qaeda wage war against them the way Al-Zarqawi waged war against Iraqi civilians in Iraq? Or will Al Qaeda just run out of steam, without the American bogeyman around?

So what’s the option for American Muslims? If turning things over to Al Qaeda is too risky, should American Muslims simply accept current American foreign policy?

It’s not an either-or situation. American Muslims are not obligated to accept the vision of either the Bush administration or Al Qaeda. American Muslims, working in conjunction with Muslims overseas, are smart enough to chart out their own course on American foreign policy. But they haven’t done that.

Ultimately, many American Muslims want the Muslim world to be safe, because many American Muslims feel connected to Muslims around the world, and because a safe Muslim world is less likely to be hostile to America than a Muslim world that feels threatened. The safety of American Muslims is intertwined with the safety of Muslims around the world; the less safe Muslims around the world feel, the more vulnerable to attack American Muslims, and other Americans, become.

Many American Muslims believe the U.S. government can undermine the ability of Al Qaeda to collect financial resources and to recruit human resources to be used against America. The U.S. government can do this through a foreign policy that demonstrates a genuine concern for the well-being of average Muslims overseas, and through a foreign policy that eliminates those grievances in the Muslim world that turn Muslims against America and towards Al Qaeda.

Ironically, grassroots American Muslims, who complain about American foreign policy in private, have not made a serious, concerted effort to chart out or promote a new course for American foreign policy. Yes, a very small percentage of American Muslims do write to, or talk to, their elected representatives on issues of personal concern to them, but the vast majority of grassroots American Muslims just sit hopelessly and pessimistically on the sidelines. No one has given them direction or leadership or hope.

Many American Muslims have fundamental questions about American foreign policy. Is America simply seeking to dominate the world, including the Muslim world, militarily and economically and culturally? Is there anything sincere or positive about President Bush’s stated desire to spread democracy and freedom in the Muslim world, or is it simply a power grab? Should American Muslims support any American efforts to promote freedom and democracy in the Muslim world? Or is the American government too untrustworthy to deal with?

Where will American Muslim direction or leadership on American foreign policy come from? It’s hard to say.

If American Muslims (working in conjunction with Muslims in the Muslim world) can come up with a real vision for the Muslim world, a vision that energizes and mobilizes our community, and if we work to persuade our elected leaders to adopt our vision, we could have a significant impact on the lives of Muslims around the world. We could also make our country safer, by reducing the hostility that many Muslims overseas feel towards America based on American foreign policy.