"If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution"

Or so says NYT toolbox, Thomas Friedman.

But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations.

That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies - particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America - look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.

Oh, boohoo...he's more concerned that the Civilized World may decide to cleanse the planet of the scourge of militant Islam via a quick and dirty "Kill 'em all, let Allah sort them out!" campaign.

The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

Notice that Friedman didn't have any problems with the entire Democratic Party remaining silent while Dick Durbin slandered our troops, thus encouraging their murder by the jihadists. Now, why would that be?

The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.

Darn straight, but too little, too late and he doesn't really mean it. As Instapudit comments noted:

ANOTHER UPDATE: Paul Schmidt says Friedman is right:

If there isn't a Million Muslim March this weekend, if there aren't crowds of muslims chanting and holding signs, "not in our name", then doubt as to the existence of moderate muslims will grow, and grow quickly.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I do too. Meanwhile, Dick Aubrey writes about Friedman: "He's late to the party. We will win the WOT. The question is...will we respect ourselves in the morning?" So far we're waging the kindest, gentlest war in history. That could change, of course.

And that's the problem. Time to fight a war to win it, not to get a draw and a Good Sportsmanship ribbon.

Reader Don Hertzmark says that Friedman is behind the curve, and should have been writing this stuff in the 1990s. "Let’s see some of those good British Muslims lead the cops to the bombers’ dens, and then I will believe that something has changed. My really close Muslim friends, mostly Indonesian, are quiet about these things, that is about all you can get. They want the government to repress or jail the Jihad boys, but they do not want to put themselves on the line with their peers, and these are our friends."

And that's the problem everywhere - from the Iraqi transplant jihadis to the sleeper cells in America - they aren't operating in total secrecy, they've got support and neighbors who know what they're up to, but won't snitch.

Who's side are they on? Don't they realize that their silence today may lead to catastrophic backlash when an American city gets nuked? There will be lynchings and chaos. If they stay silent, they'll deserve it.

The Era of Kumbayah is still over.