Obviously. And just as obviously Iraqis and Afghans who have lost children, parents, sisters and brothers, been turned into refugees, lost everything they had, etc., because of the U.S. invasions plus how badly they were botched, are not going to give a rat's ass about whether the U.S. bombings of Kosovo were a bad thing or a good thing.

Re Earthquake and tsunami: I can't really believe that you believe invading, bombing, and occupying countries is equivalent to humanitarian relief after an earthquake or tsunami. Tell me you were joking.

Many Muslims would simply oppose any war by the US against a Muslim government.

How unreasonable of them.

But the Afghan people were overwhelmingly glad to be free from the Taliban. And the Shi'ites and Kurds were equally glad to be rid of Saddam.

And if that were all the U.S. had done in Iraq and Afghanistan the Afghan and Iraqi people would no doubt be very grateful. Unfortunately, you are gripped by the same delusion so many war supporters are gripped by, that Iraqi happiness and relief at Saddam Hussein's demise means they are glad that the U.S. invaded and occupied their country for six years and counting, that they are grateful to the U.S. for the indescribably massive carnage, destruction, death, civil war, dispossession, and so on. And similarly in Afghanistan, except that in Afghanistan, in most of the country, there wasn't even any significant relief from tyranny and terror even for a brief time. Maybe a few people in Kabul felt a sense of relief for five minutes.

There's just no way around the fact that US foreign policy has done some very good things for the global Muslim community, alongside the bad things which are the constant focus in certain circles of discussion.

I'm surprised at you, David. You're not some crude, under-educated slob with a blog who can't even spell or use correct grammar, much less grasp the difference between a fact and an opinion. You are smart, you are educated, you are well-employed and well-informed. How on earth can you seriously pen a sentence like “There's just no way around the fact that US foreign policy has done some very good things for the global Muslim community, alongside the bad things which are the constant focus in certain circles of discussion.” That's not a fact, David! Come on, now!

Either way, I think the facts are very much on my side. Let's start with Kosovo. What Muslims would think it's bad for the US to prevent Slobodan Milosevic from slaughtering his fellow Muslims in Albania?

Bosnia: Our great sin there was not to act quickly enough to save more human beings, most of them Muslims.

Earthquake & Tsunami: Is there any conceivable way to present large-scale humanitarian relief as not “good for Muslims”?

Afghanistan & Iraq: Obviously, these are the more debatable ones. Many Muslims would simply oppose any war by the US against a Muslim government. But the Afghan people were overwhelmingly glad to be free from the Taliban. And the Shi'ites and Kurds were equally glad to be rid of Saddam.

There's just no way around the fact that US foreign policy has done some very good things for the global Muslim community, alongside the bad things which are the constant focus in certain circles of discussion.

Perhaps the blissfully fortunate right-conservatives should then consider the possibility that “these good things” maybe are not so good from the Arab and Muslim world's point of view. Perhaps what seems “good for the Muslims” to the American leadership and chattering classes does not appear to be so good when its effects are felt on the other side of the world from us.

I might even dare to suggest that when America did things “in the name of human rights and democracy,” those things we did, did not really, actually advance human rights or democracy in any way whatsoever.

Perhaps I should remind you of what the great and wise Wizard of Oz told the Tin Man when the latter came before him seeking a heart.

“You don't know how lucky you are not to have one,” he admonishes Tin Man. “Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable.”

The Tin Man allows as how he still would like to have one. So the Wizard place a big ticking heart on a chain over Tin Man's head, and as Tin Man is kvelling over it, the Wizard adds his final words of wisdom:

“And remember, my sentimental friend, that a heart is not judged by how much YOU love, but by how much you are LOVED.”

Works that way in international relations, too.

Friedman lists some of the bad stuff, and so do folks on comment threads here. But the fundamental point is right: the simple facts show that America has done many good things for Muslims (although it usually did them in the name of human rights and democracy, not in the name of helping Muslims.) These good things are systematically ignored by critics in the Arab world and, dare I say, some of the more unfortunate left-liberals here at home.

We may now return to the regularly scheduled Friedman bashing.

This one, especially.

All you have to do is spend some time in ANY Muslim nation and just try to see America through their eyes. They see our media, our corporations, and our government interfering with their own.

Our media is full of sex, drugs, gambling, alcohol, and many other things that Muslims find offensive.
Our corporations come in and attempt to overrun their culture.
OUr government, well….nuff said about that…..

It's easy to see why many see us as “the great satan”. It's all a matter of perspective. If our nation actually adhered to the Constitution and remained that “shining city on the hill”, we'd see much less world-wide resentment and hatred.

And not afraid to admit it, either, which is rare these days. Good job.

I would say that this is blinkered, but we’re talking about Thomas Friedman, so that would be redundant. One of the most irritating things I have noticed during the last decade has been the whining from American pundits about how ungrateful the world’s Muslims have been in response to our alleged beneficence on their behalf. The grimly amusing part of this is that the whining pundits accept the assumptions of pan-Islamists, but put them to different, limited use: Muslims everywhere must feel gratitude for any assistance we have ever rendered to a Muslim population. Of course, if our policies have ever adversely affected a Muslim population, Muslims everywhere should not think that they have any particular interest in this, but should instead resist the siren song of pan-Islamism. I have made this observation before:

In other words, Americanists want Muslims to think like Pan-Islamists when it serves Washington’s purposes (i.e., when it is supposed to make Muslims favorably disposed to us), but Muslims must never think like Pan-Islamists when it doesn’t.

U.S. foreign policy has not been “largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny.” U.S. foreign policy has worked to support the causes of certain Muslim groups, provided they had the “right” enemies (i.e., states that we already opposed or disliked), and to undermine the causes of other Muslim groups that had the “wrong” enemies

I would recommend you either learn to read or stop lying.

If you did read Friedman's columns, you would have read the one where he slammed conservatives for protesting against Obama's healthcare plan and his other big plans. You would have read the ones where he advocated for big government spending on infrastructure. You would have read his global warming columns, including his global warming book.

Now, you did call him uninformed, and I agree with you that he is uninformed when it comes to supporting big deficits and high energy taxes. Both of us stand in the same position there.

But I think you're going to far in judging him generally.

No, I don't ignore Friedman's past columns.

I mean, yes, he is a liberal, but he is an example of liberals who aren't always insane, even when they are wrong.

Um, I guess you have not picked up on the fact that *I* am a liberal, Susan. So I don't share your assumption that liberals are “insane.” Additionally, Thomas Friedman is not a liberal at all. That's why I don't agree with him on anything, see.

My point here is not that Washington was right or wrong in backing one group and opposing another, which is an argument for another day, but simply that it would not be hard for Muslims around the world to notice the far more devastating effects of U.S. and U.S.-allied hostility to certain Muslim causes more than they notice the relatively more obscure cases in which Washington backed Muslim causes.

That main cause we have been hostile too is terrorism. I'm comfortable with a hostility towards that.