In London, shops are burned. In Paris, there are riots. In Sydney there are more riots. But what about America? Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who is currently serving a life sentence for conspiring to bomb several New York City landmarks, exhorted: "Oh, you Muslims everywhere, sever the ties of their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, instigate against their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their airplanes. Kill them in land, at sea, and in the air, kill them wherever you find them."

Abdel Rahman's ringing call to action (echoed by Osama bin Laden and other lesser luminaries of Islamic extremism) has certainly reverberated throughout the Islamic world. Anti-Americanism has been on the upswing, though the last year has seen some decline in its rabidity. But what about American Muslims? Living here in the heart of darkness, American Muslims could, in theory, be the spearhead of the movement to destroy the United States. In Australia, Great Britain, France and Germany there are growing suspicions that naturalized and native-born Muslims will form the core of terror groups targeting those nations. But such is not the case in the United States.

The socio-economic statistics are impressive: Arab-Americans (not to be confused with Muslim Americans, a much larger group) have a median household income of $52,000, according to the 2000 census. A 2004 survey by Zogby International found that 59 percent of American Muslims have an undergraduate degree, more than double the nation-wide statistic of about 25 percent. The Wall Street Journal cites a study of mosque attendance in Detroit which finds the average mosque-goer is a stalwart of the middle class: married, with children, holding a college degree and earning in the range of $74,000 a year.

Should the rest of America heave a sigh of relief that we, unlike the British, French, and others, will not grow our own terrorists? Absolutely not. The middle class has generated its fair share of killers (think Mohammed Atta), but a tivo, a mortgage, membership in the PTA and a level of integration that does the American hallmark proud should diminish that likelihood significantly. Finsbury Park-style mosques and radical imams are far from the norm.

And it's a two way street. According to the FBI's 2004 statistics, religion accounts for only 16.4 percent of hate crimes in America (versus race, for example, which accounts for 53.9 percent). Of those, the overwhelming mass of the 1480 hate crimes reported were anti-Jewish (67.8 percent), while only 13 percent (or about 192) were anti-Islamic. Compare that to France (with 20 percent of the US population), where 2004 saw 482 anti-Arab/Muslim hate crimes and threats (there are some apple/orange problems with the statistics, but even with vast over-correction, it is clear that the French Muslim problem dwarfs that of the US).

In fact, the numbers confirm what most Americans know already: The United States is a good place to live, the melting pot still works, and Americans are among the most tolerant of the world's people. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the United States government has yet to fathom an approach to radical Islam beyond its borders. Indeed, for some years after 9/11, much of the US government was reluctant to mention the words "radical Islam". There has been an evolution of late, but one barely sufficient to the problem at hand. In a recent speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, President George W. Bush said, "Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism .... Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme--and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed."

Yet the commitment of the enemy is hardly matched by the commitment of the United States to counter him. True, the US is engaged in Iraq. Yes, an unprecedented effort has gone into public diplomacy. But how does the West combat Islamic extremism? US officials confronted with the question hem and haw uncomfortably. They mention the "freedom agenda" and the spread of democracy; and while democracy is indeed the long-term solution to the problem of radical Islam and the appeal of Islamic extremist groups, the problem faces us now. A short-term solution is needed to partner with the long term one.

The United States remains oddly reluctant to fight Islamic extremism at one of its most important sources: Saudi Arabia. The Saudis continue to export hatred in Korans and curricula, interfering in education systems and infiltrating mosques wherever possible. In addition, most officials are afraid to challenge "authentic" Islamic political parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Indeed, there are pressures to open dialogue with terror groups such as Hizballah and Hamas because they are "authentic" outgrowths of the political process.

Instead, U.S. officials should set aside their squeamishness and do their best to promote political maturity in the Middle East. It is possible for genuine, issue-oriented political parties to make strides. But they won't for as long as the United States government continues to believe that the best political party springs from the mosque or the tribe. After all, if Muslims in America are indeed Americans in every sense (and they are), why is it that Muslims everywhere cannot embrace political and economic freedom? The answer is that, if given a chance, they can.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.