If you haven't read the official account

of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's speech at the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Kuala Lampur, you should. The speech is available, here. The NAM web site is here. NAM is another alliance that is seeking to reinvent itself after its original cold-war justifications have disappeared.

Two things stand out about this speech in particular. One is the very real danger that the U.S. will refuse to listen to the justified complaints that are mentioned in the speech, such as the claim that the brutal realities of technological warfare look quite different when seen from the ground than when seen from the command center, and that the depersonalization that results from modern warfare can lead to a maddening cruelty that refuses to examine itself. This weekend's NYT is right to point out that the U.S. tries to avoid civilian casualties; nonetheless, there will always be a difference of perspective between those who are bombed and those who do the bombing. Military power inflicts pain on -- and creates enemies among -- civilians. You cannot avoid that fact. It is right to raise these kinds of concerns about the use of military power.

Another thing that is striking about Mohamad's speech is the kind of criticism that is aimed at the U.S. Suffice it to say that however much Bush's rhetoric seems simplistic and weird at times, he would never say something akin to the following:

Throwing a poser to NAM leaders, he said: "Why is there terrorism? Is it true that the Muslims are born terrorists because of the teachings of a prophet who was a terrorist? How do we explain the pogroms, the inquisitions and the holocaust which characterised Christian Europe for almost 2,000 years? "Why did the Jews choose to seek haven in Muslim countries whenever Christian Europeans persecuted them? Do people seek safety in the land of terrorists? (This) does not sound very likely."

Dr Mahathir said that the Christians were terrorised not by Muslims but by fellow Christians, who condemned them as heretics, and were persecuted, tortured and forced to migrate for their beliefs.

This, he said, appeared to show that the Muslims did not have a monopoly on terrorism, "certainly not on the scale of the holocaust, the pogroms and the inquisition".

"So, it cannot be that Muslims are the sole cause of all these problems," he said, adding that he did not believe either the theory that terrorism was a result of a clash between the Muslim civilisation and the Judeo-Christian civilisation.

"Frankly, I think it is because of a revival of the old European trait of wanting to dominate the world. And the expression of this trait invariably involves injustice and oppression of people of other ethnic origins and colours."

There are a lot of things going on here: Mahathir's attempts to deflect domestic criticism outward, his attempts to forge alliances with other countries in NAM, and his attempt to employ the moral vocabulary of post-colonialism. I'd like to make a point of style, however: I think it's also fair to say that Bush's inept attempts to hide his profound mistrust of muslims pale in comparison to the vigor and harshness of Mahathir's rhetoric. (Read this speech carefully, for example. Note how churches are good for social services, synagogues are good for the soul, and "Mosques provide great hope for people who wonder whether America is meant for them." Why are mosques the only places where loyalty to the U.S. is in doubt?) At least our administration doesn't make these arguments: our pundits do. I'm actually pretty happy about that, and I hope that this division of labor continues.