How much do we directly affect?

Sim expounds on reductive orientalism, and offers a clear explanation of where/how he might differ with me (if at all) on the issue of muslim hate, where it comes from and how to deal with it.

While I understand why we would want to better police our behaviors and better articulate our messages as Sim suggests, at the end of the day I wonder just how much of an effect we can have in that regard. Ultimately, what he so wants to see is some fundamental changes in Muslim nations. Question is, how much of that do we directly affect?

Short of more conflicts like Iraq, how do we change the way the governments of Iran, Jordan, Egypt or even Saudi Arabia work? Syria and Lebanon offer some hope that the "example" of Iraq might be enough to prompt some change from the inside, but still the question remains: How much do we directly affect this?

More importantly, how can we directly affect the behavior of the madrassas and the clerics who live off the 'proof points' as Sim refers to them? Consider the following hypothetical.

We give Osama Bin Laden what he asked for when he published his 1998 fatwa, the original call to arms against the United States. Would the jihad end?

I for one think not. And if acting in response to the direct request of jihad's de-facto leader weren't to get us any closer to the desired response (credit for what we do right vis-a-vis Muslims), will ensuring that Koran-gate and Abu Ghraib have no sequels garner us any of that desired response?

And in reference to Abu Ghraib directly, I don't know if Sim has read Heather McDonald's City-Journal piece. For me, the greatest service performed there is drawing the distinction between the infamous torture-narrative and what the actual policies were and have become in response to the Abu Ghraib photos.

She also points out how we backed away from techniques that were working in response to the bad press. To me, that's an overreaction. A bad overreaction that earns us no goodwill and neither helps us obtain information. Simply not a good combo.

As to accountability, I don't believe that Sim was one who agreed with the torture-as-policy assessment and the attendant clamor for the head of Rumsfeld and Gonzalez et al. The courts-martial proceedings of Private Graner, Ms. England and in fact every other soldier to date has substantiated the belief that Abu Ghraib was a result of a select few service members left to themselves without appropriate discipline or leadership. That being the case, I'd wonder what is to be done aside from the action already taken against General Karpinski as the responsible officer.

All of which takes us back to the starting point, namely what do we do?