What would happen if the US was invaded by powerful Muslim armies just out of pre-emption and benchmarks were imposed on the White House's and Congress' internal affairs? How would Americans feel if a Muslim general in charge of the US were to report back to his bosses at the capital of an Islamic superpower which happens to dominate the world? Would they be happy if foreign soldiers, diplomats, analysts, politicians, etc., regularly appear on TV and describe their plans concerning the US, including partitioning, over maps?
Trying to stand in other nations' shoes by thinking of questions such as the one above is an indispensable element of any successful foreign policy. Especially for a country with the size and impact of the US, such questioning is a must. On the contrary, it seems many Americans don't understand that even their most well-intended actions could be perceived otherwise by others. That's exactly why they have still been unable to grasp the reasons for the growing anti-US resistance in much of the world, first and foremost in lands of Islam.
One of the healthiest intellectual questions asked after the disgusting attacks of September 11 was the following: Why do they hate us? I'm telling you, so far I haven't seen an adequate level of response to that in the US, except perhaps from a learned minority. Policy makers in Washington, whose job is supposed to be reasoning on behalf of their constituencies, are among those with the thickest blindfolds.
Remember what bin Laden stated as being one of the main reasons for the 9/11 attacks: the US military presence in Muslim lands that are in compliance with Washington-friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration's response was basically to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, sending more American troops to the region. Now let's do the math. If extremist groups were able to find supporters to their 'Yankee-go-home-or-I'll-blow-you-up' campaign back in 2001, what does conventional wisdom say about their ability to do it now? Professionals at US intelligence agencies concur with the conventional wisdom that al-Qaeda recruitments should now exceed pre- 9/11 levels.
Extremist groups certainly constitute a challenge to the US. However, I think the bigger challenge is the appeal of their political arguments to larger masses. Military battles against extremists are eventually winnable, but that would be much more difficult without prevailing in a war of image and ideas. Unless the US looks at its place and actions in the world more objectively, with more self-criticism, that bigger war is bound to be lost.
I'm not arguing that the US doesn't exercise any self-criticism. Of course there is, as should be expected from an open society. The problem is, though, the nationalism prevalent in American society makes it very difficult for many officials to do that publicly. Plus, since opinion and decision makers come from the same society, they might also have their own shortcomings in seeing the big picture. A very telling example of the effectiveness of populist nationalist pressure is the evolution of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's position on the use of force. Like many other politicians, in time he discovered that without looking tough on matters of security, it is difficult to garner votes from fellow Americans.
To be fair, the US is not the only nation whose acts give the impression of expansionism and colonialism. Many big powers in the world, today and in the past, have done or have been committing similar acts. But the US gets the biggest spotlight because it is 'number one.' In our era, where a revolution of communications is taking place, mistakes are becoming increasingly difficult to hide. In this sense, who could have guessed the Internet, a great American invention, would turn out to be an effective tool against the US itself?
This is not your grandfather's world. This is not your grandfather's Middle East.
Global hegemony was difficult in the past, but today it's even more difficult. If the past of older nations hasn't already proven that, the US's short history can also offer lessons. No dominance based on military supremacy is sustainable. It's possible to deconstruct a nation by war machines, but it's not easy to build it without generating goodwill. Even if the US tries to earn the trust and goodwill of people by various public diplomacy tools, mistakes on the ground, which immediately become visible to people via telecommunication devices, almost nullify those efforts. The war for the soul of Iraq was lost much earlier than the emergence of an organized insurgency. It was lost when broadcasts showed Americans turning a blind eye to the lootings. It was lost when the Abu Ghraib atrocities were tolerated. The US was seen as no different from other colonial powers, vehemently pursuing its own national interests with little respect for others.
The biggest challenge to the US today is neither terrorism nor rival nations. The biggest challenge is offering a genuine answer to the previously asked question, "Why do they hate us?" Because without doing that, the US will continue to hurt itself more than any of its rivals and enemies could possibly imagine.
