There was a great fuss last week about comments made by two men, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and US Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin.

The Prime Minister, in the course of an otherwise surprisingly sensible speech to an Islamic conference, said thing like "the Jews rule the world by proxy", and urged Islamic nations to unite against being "defeated by a few million Jews."

The General, speaking to a church group while in his Army uniform, said, among other things, that he knew he would capture a Somali warlord when he was involved in the Clinton-era military intervention in that country because "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

The Prime Minister's anti-Semitic remarks have been condemned around the world. President Bush claimed he took him aside during an economic summit in Bangkok a couple of days later and told him what he had said was "wrong and divisive".

The General's remarks, similarly, have been condemned around the world as anti-Islamic. They are now being investigated by the Pentagon, albeit at the General's own request, and I have no doubt that he made the request because he expects in the end to be able to demonstrate, in dramatic fashion, that he has done nothing wrong.

President Bush has not chastised the General. About as far as he was willing to go, publicly, was to say that the General's remarks did not reflect either his views or those of the American Government.

It is hard to know why the rest of the world should not see the juxtaposition of these two matters as hypocritical behaviour on Mr. Bush's part. There is an unmistakable moral equivalence between anti-Semitic remarks and anti-Islamic remarks. The General's remarks were just as wrong and divisive as Prime Minister Mahathir's and, in context, ought to be a good deal more alarming to the US President, because the General is his employee.

I see the context of Dr. Mahathir's remarks in this way: in a general sense, Muslims have been fixating on the Jews as the cause of their problems for more than half a century. Dr. Mahathir himself has been recorded as having strong anti-Jewish antipathy for something like 30 years. He wrote a book published in 1970 in which, among other things, he wrote that "the Jews… are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively." The New York Philharmonic cancelled a visit to Malaysia because he tried to insist they drop plans to play Ernest Bloch's 'Hebrew Rhapsody for Cello and Orchestra'.

In 1986, he called Jews "monsters", and "pupils of Dr. Goebbels" in a speech. His film censor, thought to have been acting on his instructions, banned the film 'Schindler's List' from being shown in Malaysia because he thought it was too sympathetic towards Jews.

How could anyone be surprised by anti-Semitic remarks in a speech made by such a man to such an audience? I'm not saying that what he said was in any way correct. His remarks were thoroughly reprehensible. But I can't help thinking that no one should be particularly surprised that he made them, or by the fact that his own community sees nothing wrong with them, or by the fact that his own community will not take action against him for making them.

General Boykin's remarks, on the other hand, are alarming at two different levels. First, he is a very senior army general (I believe he was one of the founders of Delta Force, a unit very like the British SAS), who made his remarks while he was wearing his uniform. Those familiar with the ways of the military will understand this indicates he was speaking in an official capacity - that is, he was speaking for the US Army, and for the US Government.

In some circumstances, saying something in uniform that the Army might not agree with is little more than a technical offence. If a junior officer had done something similar, and if what he said had not caused what one might call substantial dismay, then his behaviour might have been glossed over as a presumably isolated instance of youthful over-exuberance.

But for a senior General to make remarks that caused dismay so substantial that they were condemned internationally, is an error of judgment so serious that I can't think there is much doubt that it ought to end his career.

The second level at which General Boykin's remarks are alarming is in the way they call attention to the fact that the American public does not seem to expect a terribly high level of sophistication on the part of the senior US military community.

The public does not seem particularly gripped by the fact that one of its most senior military officers was giving a lecture, in uniform, at what the press are calling a fundamentalist Christian Church. The public doesn't seem particularly gripped by the fact that General Boykin described the God of another world religion as an idol.

It is one thing for an 18-year-old soldier to swagger about the place as if he were about the toughest and most bloodthirsty character on the face of the planet. That's what you expect of an individual in the process of transition from the world of children to the world of grown-ups.

The rigidity of the military system, the extraordinary emphasis on control and discipline and the often extreme methods of command and control at a low level in a military unit are all methods of making sure that bloodthirsty adolescents, who are sometimes armed to the teeth, grow up safely without being a danger to themselves or anyone else who ought not to be in harm's way.

That has been the way of things in the military everywhere since the dawn of time. It has also always been the way of things in the military that the higher up the ladder maturing soldiers climb, the more prized become qualities like a broad mind, an appreciation for the arts, a sophisticated outlook on life, a capacity for subtlety, a respect for other cultures and other such virtues.

The vast majority of senior American officers I have met fit that bill just as officers in other armies do. But every once in a while you meet an American officer who might have easily have been L'il Abner's General Bullmoose before he retired, or Dr. Strangelove's General Jack D Ripper before he rode the bomb down on his cold war foes, the Russkies.

This is the kind of man who makes Europeans think that Americans are out-of-control cowboys, the kind of man who makes such an impression on people that he blinds them to the fact that he is just one square peg among a thousand round ones.

Sometimes fine lines divide good human qualities from their opposites, and those lines become finer still in people who are in a position of leadership. Soldiers easily become killers. Religious people become fanatics. Powerful people become arrogant.

Leadership at any level relies on the same principles. A good leader is a trustworthy person, respectful, responsible, fair, caring, a good citizen. And at higher levels, a good leader is someone who also has the good sense and maturity not to stay away from fine lines and grey areas.

General Boykin was out of line in his remarks about Islam. He is not the only prominent figure in the United States to have done the same thing. Religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham's son, Frank, and Pat Robertson have made some astonishingly ugly comments.

President Bush can't do much about them, but he can and should do something about General Boykin. That might move his military, his administration and, in some eyes, the United States back and away from the fine line between sincerity and hypocrisy.

gshorto@ibl.bm