One reason George Bush Sr. was able to liberate Kuwait a decade ago was that he brought Arab and Muslim nations into a broad coalition. His son, George W. Bush, has successfully pursued the same strategy. Many key Middle Eastern and Central Asian governments have denounced the Sept. 11 attacks and pronounced themselves America's friend in the battle against terror. Even Iran, which almost went to war with Afghanistan in 1998, has declared itself, if not America's friend, then at least the enemy of its enemy.

But President Bush's coalition is shakier than his father's. In the same breath that Arab leaders denounce the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, they lecture the United States about its policies. Even allies such as Saudi Arabia do not want their airfields used for offensive operations against Afghanistan. In Syria, the government has denounced the attacks on the U.S., but wants the UN to lead the counterattack. President Bashar Assad thinks Israel is the world's leading source of terror, and has declared that "[We] must not allow the charge of terrorism to be slapped on the resistance movements fighting the occupation." To his mind, Hamas and Islamic Jihad both qualify as resistance movements. Compare this with the situation a decade ago, when a massive ground war was launched from Arabian soil, and Syria, Egypt and Pakistan all pledged fighting forces. Even lowly Afghanistan scraped together 300 soldiers. It is a measure of how great the tension between the West and the Muslim world has become that, though the Taleban regime in Afghanistan is loathed as thoroughly as Saddam Hussein's was in 1991, Muslim nations would laugh if Mr. Bush now asked them for troops. This is regrettable, but understandable. Most Muslim nations have militant domestic constituencies opposed to co-operation with the United States on principle. It would do the West little net good if, in the course of destroying the Taleban, we sparked a revolt in Pakistan that put nuclear missiles into the hands of radical Islamists.

But the shooting war in Afghanistan may soon be over, Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants killed or captured, and the terrorist support and training infrastructure there demolished. The sense of crisis will pass and so too will the urgent need for Mr. Bush to nurture so broad a coalition. It will then be time for him, and for the rest of the West, to deal with those Muslim states on the fringes of the coalition that have pledged (however unenthusiastically) to co-operate in the war against terrorism but which, in truth, themselves cultivate terrorism and offer succour to those who practise it.

In its bid to win allies, the United States has taken a friendly attitude to some marginal nations. Sanctions have been relaxed against Sudan and Pakistan. Britain has attempted to open talks with Iran, even though Tehran is suspected of involvement in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and of funneling cash to anti-Israel terrorists in Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. It is vital that the scope of Mr. Bush's war on terrorism should be as broad in fact as it was in rhetorical sweep during his splendid address to Congress last month. Once the immediate problem of al-Qaeda and Afghanistan have been dealt with, the West's coalition-cementing gestures of goodwill, aid and normalized trade relations should be withdrawn from those Muslim nations that do not make a long-term commitment to eradicating terrorism. Egypt, for example, should be made to understand that its $3-billion of annual U.S. aid will not continue to be paid if it does not become a complete ally in deeds, not just in words.

What form will this anti-terrorist commitment take in Muslim countries? First, terrorist camps and headquarters must be closed. The governments of Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority all openly host terrorists. (Two weeks ago, Syria hosted leaders of "liberation movements" such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP.) Other Muslim regimes, including Saudi Arabia, provide cash. All this must end. As Mr. Bush said on Sept. 20, "every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Muslim governments must go further than merely rooting out functioning terrorist cells. They must stop sowing the psychological seeds of future terrorism. Arab media encourages hatred of the West. Collectively, they play as large a role in promoting terrorism as does Osama bin Laden. Demonization of the West and Jews has become pervasive in Muslim media. Ahmad Murad, a columnist for Al-Arabi, an Egyptian weekly, recently wrote: "I am happy about [what happened to] America; I am happy about the great number of American dead." In the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram on Aug. 14, Fahmi Huweidi wrote of the recent suicide bombing in Jerusalem: "I cannot hide my happiness about the martyrdom operation that took place in Jerusalem. I won't deny that it liberated me [from] sorrow and misery." Syrian Arab Writers Association chairman Ali Uqleh Ursan recently wrote in an editorial that "When the twin towers collapsed ... I felt deep within me like someone that was delivered from the grave; I [felt] that I was being carried in the air above the corpse of the mythological symbol of arrogant American imperialist power ... My lungs filled with air and I breathed in relief, as I had never breathed before."

Anti-Western demagoguery in the Middle East is not confined to government-controlled media -- in fact, the most virulent pronouncements are often found in what passes for "opposition" publications. But, ultimately, Arab governments must be held responsible for the quantity of the venom. This is not an argument for a less free press in the Muslim world; quite the opposite. If political leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere denounced terrorism in public speeches, and mounted sustained public education campaigns in their own countries, explaining in detail why this is both moral and expedient, then the media (whether free or state controlled) would report it. Islamist terrorism would start to be debated by people who at present regard it as an article of faith.

In both Islamist and non-Islamist Arab nations -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to take a prominent example of each -- strong criticism of the government is repressed. Thus, even as Western aid and oil money pours into the Middle East, the media and Mullahs consciously deflect grumbling about domestic corruption and political repression toward the only permissible target: the Great Western Satan, which is, the masses are told, engaged in a plot to hold back the Arab world.

Many of the conspiracy theories that circulate in the Arab press are ridiculous -- that Pokémon is a Zionist plot for instance, or that Israel is building an "ethnic bomb" that will kill Arabs but not Jews. For deep-seated cultural and religious reasons, the Arab Middle East is receptive to this sort of claptrap. Since many Arab Muslims, not just the fanatics, put great stock in the Manichaean distinction between Allah's "House of God" and the infidels' "House of War," they are often ready to believe anything they hear about Judeo-Christian conspiracy. Then there is the obsession with shame and honour that pervades Arab culture. According to Osama bin Laden and many Middle Eastern commentators, the existence of Israel and the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia amount to a "humiliation." Neither poses any great threat to the Muslim character of the Middle East, but both are symbols of the technological and military might of the West and highlight the backwardness of the Arab world. This is why both issues are so useful in both sermons and media commentaries as emotional rallying cries for jihad.

In the process of deflecting hate, Arab regimes have also deflected terrorism itself. The main architect of the Sept. 11 terrorism was probably Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's lieutenant and former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. His terrorist campaign was once focused on Egypt, where he sought to impose an Islamist government. He joined bin Laden's anti-Western crusade and brought his organization to Afghanistan only after an Egyptian crackdown made continued operations difficult. In Al-Zawahiri's mind, the evil, secular West became a surrogate for the evil, secular Egyptian government. (His motto: If you can't attack the one you hate, hate the one you attack.)

The reaction to Sept. 11 proves the Arab deflection campaign has worked well. In many parts of the Arab world, it is now taken as accepted fact that it was "the Zionists" and the CIA who authored last month's terrorist attacks in an attempt to smear Islam. Another popular myth is that 4,000 Jewish employees who worked at the World Trade Center stayed home from work on Sept. 11. And Mohammed Atta's own father apparently believes that his son was murdered by Israeli intelligence agents. That such bizarre theories should gain credence demonstrates how thoroughly the Arab world has been indoctrinated by Arab governments and the media they directly or indirectly control. Bringing this brainwashing campaign to an end must be a priority once Osama bin Laden and his terrorist threat are eliminated. It must be made plain to "moderate" Muslim nations that their fence sitting is unacceptable, for it foments terrorism against us, the West.

President Bush's words must become reality -- Muslim nations must be forced to choose whether they are with us, or with the terrorists.