Not where, but why?

I've been seeing news items online here and there for the past few days about what city in the Muslim world Barack Obama should choose to deliver an address. It seems Obama has decided - for some reason - that within his first hundred days in office he will deliver a foreign policy speech in an "Islamic capital". In James Taranto's WSJ column linked above, Taranto suggests Mecca.

But there is a city that, although not a national capital, is for all intents and purposes the capital of all Islam--a place where Obama could credibly speak to all Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, from Morocco to Malaysia to Michigan.

Not only that, but Obama's very presence--along with that of his secretary of state, chief of staff, the rest of his entourage and the traveling press from all over the world--would demonstrate that Islam is a more tolerant faith than many Westerners, including this columnist, have thought.

Is it really that simple? Can we be serious? Yes, we can.

All the new president has to do is give a speech in Mecca.

There is, of course, just one problem with that:


To me, the real question isn't where Obama should deliver such a speech, but why he should in the first place. Presumably such a speech would be intended to "mend rifts" between the US and the Muslim world. As I understand it, about the only things he could say that would accomplish that would be an announcement that he is withdrawing all American forces from "Muslim lands", ending US support for Israel, and signing legislation making the US a Muslim country.