Fixing Uncle Sam’s Image Problem

Underlying all these events has been a central source: Washington's failure to think strategically. The solution, therefore, would be for the next president to revive old-fashioned strategic policymaking. This isn't a call for cynical realpolitik; the United States need not abandon its ideals. But it will have a better chance of realizing them if it takes a more prudent and strategic approach to world affairs.

In practice, this means recognizing that the United States can't do everything. Like any normal nation, it must prioritize. And it should view the world as a single geopolitical chessboard. This means that if Washington wants to improve its standing in, for example, Indonesia—the world's most populous Muslim nation—it must work to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such linkages count.

That said, the United States is still the world's strongest country. That means it has plenty of cards to play. As well as formidable hard power, Washington retains significant soft power—the ability to attract, not compel. Foreign elites still dream of sending their kids to U.S. universities (indeed, all three of my children are happy to study there). More broadly, the American Dream continues to excite the imagination of young people everywhere. Were such assets deployed more intelligently, Washington could work wonders.

That's especially so because Americans can't get everything they want through threats or force alone. Take the Islamic world, with some 1.2 billion inhabitants. Nowhere is the U.S. image problem worse. Again, the problem stems from poor policies, especially toward the Palestinian territories. During the cold war, Washington tried to maintain an evenhanded policy in the region. But since the Berlin Wall fell, Americans have dropped this evenhandedness in favor of a strong pro-Israel bias. American neocons are right to say that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict wouldn't magically resolve all of America's image problems. But it would get rid of the main source of poison. Indeed, the United States, Israel and the Palestinians would all profit from a quick move toward a two-state solution. Compromise is critical; America is no longer as mighty as it once was, and it has to learn to be pragmatic.

A similar pragmatism should apply to India and China. Washington should work to ensure their emergence as modern, rules-based countries—and not try to stand in their way. China's rise is unstoppable, as is India's. Best, therefore, to manage their ascendance intelligently. Fortunately, America and China (and India) have many common interests. Global warming, energy shortages, financial crises and health epidemics affect Americans, Chinese and Indians alike, and require cooperation to address.

This brings us to another key point: the need for multilateralism. The Bush administration got things badly wrong by acting as if U.S. security could be enhanced by demolishing or ignoring key agreements, like the Kyoto accords or the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Yet this radical unilateralism only endangered the United States, by undermining the strong global consensus that restrains regimes like North Korea. While Americans like to show off their toughness by mocking multilateralism, strategic thinking shows that the United States is well served by strengthening, not undermining, international cooperation.