It is important to have partners in the war on terrorism, Carnegie's Robert Kagan writes, but a unilateral determination to act invariably precedes a policy of effective multilateralism.
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition, but until September 11, an acute sense of persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate.
Can the United States win a war on terrorism while winking at some terrorists and cozying up to nations that support them? Can the United States effectively fight terrorism and reward terrorism at the same time? You shouldn't have to ponder those questions very long. The certain answer is no.
The war on anti-American terrorism must target Hezbollah, the terrorist group backed by Iran and Syria, as well as the Taliban. And it must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power, by supporting the Iraqi opposition and, if necessary, by using American military force to complete the tragically unfinished task begun in Operation Desert Storm a decade ago.
Ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, it is striking how many remnants of that era remain. Partly as a result of Russia's slow progress in becoming a "Western" country, European and American leaders are reconsidering the kind of relationship they wish to cultivate with Russia.