AQAP is an elusive terrorist organization that poses a significant threat to America and its interests. While never under the direct control of bin Laden or the al-Qaeda parent organization, the current AQAP traces its roots to two regional Al Qaeda affiliated groups that launched such attacks as that against the U.S.S. Cole, suicide bombings at a Western housing compound, and the 2008 assault on the American embassy in Yemen. These groups merged in 2009 with the intention of establishing a new Islamic caliphate in the Arabian Peninsula by overthrowing the Saudi and Yemeni governments and forcing Western nations from the region. Intelligence agencies also claim that the group was responsible for the failed “underwear bomber” suicide plot on a Detroit-bound plane last Christmas.

The organization’s leaders recruit experienced fighters from Saudi, Yemeni, Somali, Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani cells.  Although experts and intelligence agencies know the names of several of the group’s most prominent members, including an American national, they have not published information on how large the group is or how far its influence is known to extend. Estimates range from dozens to hundreds, demonstrating that the group’s full potential is still unknown. The Yemeni government, however, is poorly equipped and cannot easily restrain AQAP. The nation’s economy is the poorest in the Middle East per capita and dependent on its dwindling oil supplies. Since Yemen’s 1990 unification, President Ali Abdullah Saleh has struggled to exert influence beyond the major cities. As part of this effort, Saleh has not only fought AQAP but also countered separatists and rebels that have spread the government’s meager resources thin and obscured AQAP’s actions amid widespread violence. Much of Yemen’s territory, especially in the mountains and desert, is virtually autonomous tribal areas that oppose heavy government involvement. While most of these tribes reject AQAP, experts like Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University hold that some tolerate AQAP and allow it to build bases in their territory. This sympathy is greater in areas with other anti-government movements. Additionally, the Saudi-Yemeni border is extremely porous, allowing AQAP members to attack targets in both nations. As Saudi forces have prevented terrorist groups from forming in its territory, AQAP’s situation parallels the Taliban’s use of uncontrolled Pakistani tribal regions as bases from which to attack Afghan targets. The parts of the country Saleh’s government does control are often corrupt and ineffective, especially as Saleh appoints family members to political positions and seems focused on consolidating his family’s power.

American success in Yemen has been limited. The War on Terror’s early years saw initial gains against AQAP as the United States helped train and support Yemeni forces and launched Yemeni-approved missile strikes. Utilizing what President Obama’s top counterterrorism expert referred to as a “scalpel” rather than a “hammer,” the United States has increased its involvement in Yemen since 2009 through covert action, cruise missiles, and drone attacks that fall under the CIA’s, rather than the military’s, command. Both American and Yemeni officials say these operations occur with the Yemeni government’s approval. Despite successfully hitting several AQAP targets, the campaign’s impact is questionable partially due to Yemenis’ suspicion about Saleh’s motives and concern over American intervention. There have also been reports of civilian casualties, earning condemnation from human rights groups and sparking tribal conflicts. Considering the bomb plot uncovered October 29, it appears that this effort has so far failed to decisively undermine AQAP’s strength, and the CIA must reevaluate its approach.

The U.S. should strengthen the Yemeni government’s influence. A top priority should be unifying the tribal regions against AQAP. To do this, America should set up discussions between Saleh and his nation’s tribal leaders so that they can reach policy compromises and convince the tribal leaders that AQAP is a mutual enemy. To cement tribal loyalties in the current push against AQAP, America and Yemen should follow the tribal motto “My state is anyone who fills my pocket with money”: the U.S. should give Saleh the financial backing he would need to buy tribal loyalty. This might be expensive, but current estimates expect U.S. military aid to approach the enormous sum of $1.2 billion in the next five years anyway. Buying tribes’ loyalty would not be a long-term solution, nor would it ensure that tribes remain loyal, but expanding support for the Yemeni government would limit where AQAP could operate and allow American and Yemeni forces to concentrate their energies on smaller areas.

Focusing American resources on intelligence gathering is also a critical step. The U.S. should bolster its intelligence network in Yemen and work to strengthen cooperation with Yemeni intelligence resources. This would render covert operations more effective, reducing civilian and unintended casualties. Cooperating with Yemeni authorities would also assure that Saleh and his government play an integral role in long-term stability. While increasing the number of intelligence-gathering resources, though, the U.S. should not follow what some State Department officials propose and give the Yemeni army a cache of expensive weaponry. Given the number of weapons proposed, the Yemeni government’s corruption could allow insurgents to acquire some of these weapons. There is also the possibility of government misuse, as the Yemeni government could use resources intended for fighting AQAP to fight other insurgent groups or suppress political dissent.

Yemen presents a new front in the War on Terror and a new opportunity to improve on what lessons the U.S. has already learned. In a political climate where troop deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to public outcry and where the current administration campaigned on an anti-war platform, the operations in Yemen can signify a new strategy in which intelligence-gathering and cooperation with an existing society replace the alternate focus on military efforts, troop number, and nation building. Fully embracing this new approach by winning tribal support and improving intelligence networks will change how the U.S. fights the war and will replace the hammer with the scalpel. By focusing on practical measures, policymakers can use Yemen as a turning point in the War on Terror.

At present, the Taliban leadership is in no mood to negotiate; its position is too strong. Even if, however, the Taliban leadership were somehow swayed in the coming weeks, and the government managed to produce a set of policies—amnesty, political participation, material incentives—sufficiently favorable as to induce Taliban cooperation, this would mean that an already unpopular, distrusted government would openly reward the very group that ruled tyrannically over the Afghani people before the American invasion, the group that has been at war with its own country since 2001.

This policy would doubtless run into serious backlash. Afghanis remain fundamentally bitter towards the United States; Americans were largely welcomed in 2001 as a hopeful improvement over the Taliban, but the gains for average Afghanis thus far have been small. If the American-backed Afghan government offers material incentives to the Taliban—that is, provides for the Taliban in a way that society as a whole has not been provided for—resentment towards the occupiers and the government will understandably deepen, especially amongst the ethnic Tajiks and Hazaras who have fought against the ethnically Pashtun Taliban. This is resentment, which a tenuous, disastrously corrupt government can ill afford. Indeed, by losing the support of the population, this would be to break counterinsurgency rule number one.

The even greater worry is that reconciliation would risk inviting a return to Taliban rule. The weak, unpopular Afghan government will only become exponentially more unstable when the United States and NATO inevitably reduce their presence. If reconciliation brings an intact Taliban back into the societal fabric—and, indeed, into the political process—there is a real danger that the progress made over the last eight years will be subverted by a gradual reentry of Taliban influence. Even if the Taliban agree to cut a deal and put down the guns, it cannot be expected to rethink or renounce the militant, retrograde, and repressive ideology which lies at the very heart of their movement. Any leader who renounces that ideology in favor of a bribe or the democratic process would not just risk his leadership status, he would also risk his head.

This has sinister implications for the Afghan state should the Taliban gain any real foothold in the government. If, in five years, for instance, education is once again forbidden for women above age eight, the US will have failed. Moreover, the Taliban can scarcely be expected to faithfully renounce its alliance with al-Qaeda, because that alliance has long been a fundamental power source and would, in the event of reintegration, provide fervid support for the resurgence of Taliban dominance. Should this resurgence occur and al-Qaeda begin to regain its position in Afghanistan, the US will be markedly less secure.

That said, this speculation is presently moot, because any real concessions from the Taliban leadership simply aren’t credible until the American and Afghan forces have gained more ground. The Afghan government is weak and corrupt, and the Afghan security apparatus is inept. American involvement has an expiration date, and Mr. Karzai himself has voiced skepticism about the government’s survival given the drawdown plans. Two dozen Afghan police officers recently disappeared, taking their trucks, guns, and heavy weaponry with them; it’s suspected they defected to the Taliban, following in the footsteps of hundreds of its colleagues. Certainly no progress will be made as long as Afghanis keep seeing greener pastures in the Taliban camp, because the Taliban will continue to think it can win, and it may be right.

Therefore, the coalition’s strategy in Afghanistan centers on gaining the upper hand to loosen the Taliban’s grip on the country while gaining popular support to make sure the grip stays loosened. This begins with operations like the present offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Marja. General Petraeus’ recent proposition that the current work in Marja is but the “initial salvo” in a campaign that may take 12 to 18 months underlines what will be an indispensable American asset in the coming years: patience. Americans need to recognize the potential for drawn out commitment in cases like Marja, where we simply cannot leave until a durable government is in place. We need to be prepared to exercise the utmost patience and to defer to military judgment as we approach the drawdown date in 2011. The risks of withdrawing prematurely will be monumentally greater than the risks of remaining to bolster stability.

Allied forces need to ramp up the sacrifices in another sphere as well; they need to be willing to contribute money, and a lot of it. The ability to provide for the Afghani people will be pivotal. Legitimate leadership in Afghanistan has always—dating back centuries to times when tribes ruled themselves, autonomous of any formal state—rested on the ability to accumulate and redistribute wealth to subjects. In order for Mr. Karzai’s government to gain support, allies need to be ready to finance poverty alleviation programs, rural development, and investment in irrigation canals and roads in order to help craft the image of a government that is a meaningful improvement on its predecessors. The US should also be directing money as aggressively as possible towards the bottom-up subversion of the Taliban, both by offering monetary incentives to the rank and file members—those driven by desperation, not by ideology—and by orchestrating more operations like the recent outreach to the Shinwari tribe, whereby the tribe received aid in exchange for committing to take an aggressive stand against the Taliban and all who harbored its fighters.

In a time of severe recession, providing substantial aid is naturally a gut-wrenching prospect. Yet the future of Afghanistan needs to be viewed as an investment, one into which hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives have already been poured, and one whose collapse could be a considerable setback in the global war against terrorism.

The US needs to tread very carefully in neighboring Pakistan, which will ultimately be pivotal in maintaining stability after American withdrawal. Pakistan has recently shown what appears to be an increased willingness to strike aggressively at the Afghan Taliban on its own soil, capturing several senior Taliban leaders, including Mullah Baradar and Mullah Kabir. Perhaps these recent arrests underscore a new Pakistani resolve to abandon the strategy of controlling Afghanistan through support for the Taliban. Yet Islamabad is simultaneously pushing to take a leading role in reconciliation attempts, and it could be that the increased cooperation is intended to earn, in American eyes, a seat at the head of the negotiations table. The US must remain acutely cognizant of the fact that Islamabad’s overwhelming priority is to maintain influence in Afghanistan, and that if the Taliban remain strong, it may choose to favor the terrorist group regardless of its current antagonistic posture.

The US should thus aggressively encourage, with aid and equipment, further efforts like those which captured Baradar and Kabir. We should denounce reconciliation at the current status quo, and promise Pakistan a central position in reconciliation that may occur in the future with a drastically weakened Taliban. We should offer the Karzai government incentives to forge a close, cooperative relationship with the Pakistani government, and we should be highly explicit in warning Islamabad that any identifiable complicity in a future Taliban resurgence will be met with severe diplomatic repercussions, including the full withdrawal of American aid.

With these tactics in place, the time may come when the government can claim the upper hand in settling with the enemy. Even then, Afghanistan will remain desperately poor and widespread satisfaction with the government will be difficult to obtain. Reconciliation in this environment will first and foremost demand a purging of figures like Mullah Omar. These charismatic, ideologically-driven leaders, remarkably adept at transforming popular disillusionment into violence, must be permanently isolated from the Afghan populace. A tenable reconciliation plan might therefore include a hierarchy of reintegration, whereby the foot soldiers are fully embraced into society, the mid-level leadership are reintegrated but permanently barred from holding political office, and the top tier leadership like Omar are granted amnesty but rejected from the fabric of Afghan society, and perhaps even forbidden on Afghan soil.

These sorts of restrictions will be fundamental in preserving the order as the dust over Afghanistan settles, but they will obviously be rejected outright until the day when the Taliban can no longer see victory on the horizon. The Afghan government must reach the point where it can negotiate with a Taliban that is very much defeated and that will remain so—lest popular unrest, Pakistani (or al-Qaeda) support, or some combination thereof subvert the progress that has been so costly in blood and treasure.

The Yemeni offshoot of al-Qaeda has steadily grown more potent in recent years, merging with its Saudi progenitor to form al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This organization’s targets are both local and global. In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the Navy destroyer U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden with predominantly Yemeni explosives, attackers, and accomplices. Yemen was also linked to the 1998 East African embassy bombings, the strike on the French oil tanker Limburg, the September 11th attacks, and the assassination attempt against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in Saudi Arabia last August. That assassination attempt used the same tactics and explosives (pentaerythritol tetranitrate sewn into the bomber’s underwear) as the attempted Christmas attack.
Yemen’s location, geography, and fractured polity make it a paradise for al-Qaeda. At the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen is close to Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; its porous borders and extensive coastline are far from secure, while its rugged mountains provide apt hiding places for terrorists. With oil reserves running dry, Yemen’s arms market is among its few economic strengths—it trails only the U.S. in gun ownership per capita. Meanwhile, a strong, conservative religious population is a solid support base for al Qaeda’s propaganda, and tribal groups with relations to al-Qaeda control much of the borderlands. There is a separatist movement in the south and an insurgency in the north, and the unified Yemen is less than two decades old. Yemen is a near-ideal base of operations for Al-Qaeda, combining Afghanistan and Pakistan’s formidable terrain with Somalia’s near-anarchy.

In 2005, the terrorists responsible for the Cole bombing were in prison. Today, however, many of them are free, including confessed bombers Jamal al-Badawi, Fahd al-Quso, and Naser Abdel-Karim al-Wahishi. All three escaped from maximum-security prisons in Yemen. Badawi turned himself in after a year, but was released for good behavior; Quso is a re-established terrorist operative, conducting interviews for al Qaeda; and Wahishi is the head of al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. In 2008, FBI special agent Ali Soufan warned Senate staff members “unless the American government sent a united message to the Yemenis to act against Al Qaeda, the terrorists responsible for the Cole would remain free and there would be future attacks against the United States connected to Yemen.” Soufan observes, “Today, the terrorists behind the Cole are still free, and an attack connected to Yemen has been attempted.”

Current U.S. policy towards Yemen is based on counterterrorism support, limited special operations, and drone strikes. In 2009, US expenditures for counterterrorism support were $70 million; according to a senior military official, President Obama plans to increase that amount to $190 million. The U.S. coordinates much of its effort with Western-friendly Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. But President Saleh has often used American aid against local insurgencies rather than against al-Qaeda. The local insurgencies more directly threaten Saleh’s sovereign authority, and he wants to maintain at least minimal support from the conservative Islamist population. Unconditional aid is therefore ineffective—Yemeni authorities can divert resources from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency.

The U.S. should make an all-or-nothing deal on foreign aid to Yemen: America should offer more financial support under the condition that Yemeni courts imprison those responsible for the Cole bombing. Some might argue that incarceration would be ineffective because new recruits would replace those imprisoned. But anything short of life imprisonment means effective impunity for terrorists; prosecution would send a message to al-Qaeda that the U.S. and Arab governments will not tolerate acts of terror. If these conditions are met, the U.S. should stay its present course of providing counter-terrorist aid. Admittedly, this solution may not be immediately effective, but any sustainable, forward-looking strategy against an asymmetrical threat will require patience.
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has suggested that Yemen will be “tomorrow’s war” if the U.S. does not act preemptively. Preemptive military engagement, however, is simply not feasible, with the U.S. military already overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq. America is still fighting two wars, and escalating one of them; we cannot realistically expect victory in a third, especially after taking into account the counterinsurgency efforts that U.S. troops would inherit from the Yemeni government. Even if preemptive military intervention were feasible, it would likely provoke a popular backlash, destabilizing the Western-friendly regime. Al-Qaeda feeds on Western interventions; the risk of backlash is especially high in Yemen’s tribal north with widespread poverty, illiteracy, and resentment of the central government. Intelligence, logistical support, and foreign aid should be the extent of American involvement in an effort that only Yemen can achieve. As Marc Lynch, a counter-terrorism expert at George Washington University, has suggested, the U.S. should not fall into the trap of overcommitment in a rush to “just do something.”

In short, the U.S. should largely stay the course in Yemen, but must put more diplomatic pressure on the Yemeni government to ensure our plans are carried through. Although the Yemeni government is weak, it has achieved success in counterterrorist operations in the past few weeks. We have recently seen an unprecedentedly successful offensive against jihadist commanders in the south and center of the nation; five raids in the Abyan and Shabwa provinces have killed more than 60 fighters. Of course, an avowedly pro-Western government faces grave dangers in the Middle East, but a puppeteer is better than a hegemon. The United States should provide further assistance to Yemen before resorting to direct military engagement.

Currently, the U.S. has no formal diplomatic ties with Cuba and has maintained an embargo that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to do business in the country. Although Fidel Castro’s abdication of power in 2006 precipitated shifts in the Cuban power structure that offered the possibility of a gradual thaw in relations, lingering Cold War antagonisms have precluded these possibilities from maturing into real change.

The Obama administration’s Cuba policy has thus far been a mix of inspiring first steps and disappointing stubbornness. In the weeks surrounding the Summit of the Americas, rapprochement looked like a real possibility. President Obama told leaders at the Summit that “the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled in overcoming decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.” Since then, however, U.S.-Cuban relations have frozen. After finally removing restrictions on Cuban-Americans’ ability to visit family on the island and send remittances, as well as permitting telecommunication companies to provide cell phone service in Cuba, the White House has disappointingly outlined a “tit-for-tat” approach to further rapprochement. Referring to Cuban leaders, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that in order to see more benefits from the U.S., “They’re certainly free to release political prisoners. They’re certainly free to stop skimming money off the top of remittance payments as they come back to the Cuban island. They’re free to institute a greater freedom of the press.” From the Cuban perspective, such reforms would dwarf the concessions the U.S. has offered; issuing token economic reforms and demanding massive political change is not the way to win the trust of leaders in Cuba, or anywhere else in Latin America for that matter.

Despite tensions, improved relations with Cuba are consistent with U.S. interests. Economically, Cuba represents an untapped and desirable trading partner. In an early December lecture at Princeton University, Cuba scholar Julia Sweig hypothesized that, were it not for the American embargo, Cuba could follow Vietnam’s developmental model, and gradually expand its economy through the growth of export markets. This would be of direct benefit to the U.S. economy.

Even more important than encouraging domestic change on the island, rapprochement with Cuba stands to improve U.S. diplomatic relations with all of Latin America. At last year’s Summit of the Americas, leaders from around the region, including relative moderate Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina, berated the U.S. for an “anachronistic” approach to Cuba. America’s insistence on antagonizing the Cuban government undercuts more important regional goals, specifically efforts to demonstrate that U.S. hemispheric hegemony need no longer be consistent with demanding, heavy-handed political relationships. Given the national significance of trade with Latin America, and the need for regional cooperation on issues like the drug trade, undocumented migrations, and human trafficking, the distrust motivated by the U.S. stance towards Cuba is a serious detriment to hemispheric policy. The lessening of hostilities towards Cuba could do much to assist the pursuit of other regional goals.

In this context, the emphasis the TSA recently placed on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism was misguided. The 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism admit that “Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world.” Current justification for Cuba’s inclusion seems based on its harboring of Euskadi Ta Askatasuna in Spain, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the National Liberation Army of Colombia, although the Country Reports acknowledge that some individuals visited Cuba in connection with peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia. The Cuban government has also admitted U.S. fugitives from groups like the Boricua Popular (or Macheteros) and the Black Liberation Army, but the Reports concede that in accordance with the government’s public declarations, Cuba has not granted protection to any new fugitives since 2006.

Given that ongoing Cuban activity does not appear to threaten the U.S., its position on the list of state sponsors of terror is clearly anachronistic. Removing Cuba from the list would not cost the U.S. anything, nor would it represent significant backtracking on the U.S. commitment to political and economic freedoms. It would, however, be a powerful signal to Cubans and other Latin American observers that the U.S. does in fact want to move past the Cold War framework of U.S.-Latin American relations. The removal, while individually insufficient to ease U.S.-Cuban antagonism, would be an important first step in that direction. Until President Obama updates the list accordingly, it is unlikely that Latin American governments will take seriously his overtures for a new era of inter-American relations.

Examining the history of America’s interaction with the rest of the world provides context for the actions of the Obama administration. Hand wringing about America’s image abroad dates back to at least the 1960s, and has intensified in recent decades. Cold War era conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race, drew massive protests in Europe. In the aftermath of the downfall of the Soviet Union, observers derided the U.S. as a “hyperpower,” a critique that encompassed not only America’s political moves, but also its economic and cultural might in an increasingly globalized, unipolar world.

Tensions between the U.S. and its traditional allies mounted in 2002 when Bush announced his intention to invade Iraq, a campaign he planned to launch unilaterally once the UN refused to endorse it. European leaders, most prominently Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, denounced America’s behavior as aggressive, echoing a sentiment expressed by an overwhelming majority of European citizens.

Yet, as in the past, America’s partners maintained a schizophrenic attitude toward their benefactor. For all its faults, America offered protection for European countries that had largely demilitarized in the years since World War II. Hence, whenever an outside threat appeared on the horizon, all talk of a post-American world suddenly vanished, and the transatlantic alliance appeared to be just as strong as ever. This was the case in the summer of 2008, when Russia’s invasion of Georgia inspired fear in the hearts of European publics. In response, their leaders quickly modified their stance to reflect closer alignment with the U.S. on issues such as missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Even as America saw its ratings decline under Bush in what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dubbed “old Europe,” the story was different elsewhere. The U.S. continued to enjoy favorable relations with the countries of the former Soviet bloc, who still remain thankful to the U.S. for defeating their former communist oppressors. Several Eastern European nations, most prominently Poland, contributed troops to the U.S. mission in Iraq. Ties with rising powers in Asia, such as India and Japan, improved on Bush’s watch, as demonstrated by a series of joint military exercises as well as a landmark nuclear treaty with India. These bonds appear likely to remain strong even with the recent election of the Democratic Party of Japan, which has occasionally indulged in anti-American rhetoric, but has also announced a commitment of $5 billion for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a critical U.S. priority. Humanitarian aid to areas afflicted by poverty, disease, and natural disaster won plaudits among the President’s harshest critics. In Latin America, where populist politicians like Hugo Chavez gained ground throughout the past decade, local issues such as income disparity far outweighed the role of anti-American grandstanding in determining their success.

As has been established, America was by no means universally unpopular on the eve of President Obama’s inauguration. Nevertheless, during the campaign, Obama frequently sounded the theme of America’s deteriorating reputation abroad. To indicate that reversing anti-American sentiment was one of his top priorities, he sought to portray himself as a global citizen in a way that is perhaps unprecedented in American history: by emphasizing his multicultural background. He addressed an enormous, cheering crowd in Berlin during a tour of Europe and the Middle East in July 2008, and met with foreign leaders who demonstrated their eagerness to work with him.

The contrast between Obama and Bush became immediately apparently in the first few months of Obama’s presidency, as he began to overturn policies that, in the past, have incited denunciation of the U.S. Fulfilling a campaign promise, he issued an executive order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within a year, a directive that later ran into logistical problems. He renounced the use of torture against terrorist suspects. In speeches to foreign nations, he extended his criticisms of America to include unsavory elements of its history, such as mistreatment of immigrants and minority groups, and heavy-handed interventionism during the Cold War.

All of these measures represented an attempt to “reset” America’s relations with the rest of the world. Various missteps, however, have tarnished that campaign. Obama was criticized for being deliberately rude to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, one of America’s closest allies, during Brown’s visit to Washington. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Obama’s goal of achieving peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been set back by his frosty relations with hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has refused Obama’s demand to halt settlements in the West Bank.

Discontent with Obama’s foreign agenda has grown in recent months. An article in the German publication Der Spiegel noted that his new approach to international relations has not worked. European powers remain reluctant to provide significant military support for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. French President Nicholas Sarkozy has been particularly adamant in criticizing Obama’s perceived weakness in negotiations with Iran, whose pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the entire world. China and Russia both continue to exercise their influence as regional powers, and have largely ignored the outreach undertaken by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

How can Obama reverse course in his quest to revitalize America’s image? To begin, he should seize every possible opportunity to find common ground with America’s allies on issues such as human rights. When he decided against meeting with the Dalai Llama in October, the President aroused suspicions that he would not be as sympathetic to human rights concerns as his predecessors, all of who met with the exiled Tibetan leader during their administrations. His endorsement of the so-called “Green Revolution” in Iran, in which citizens took to the streets to protest the fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was seen as less than enthusiastic. In this matter, he should take the advice offered by Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel—“never let a crisis go to waste”—and apply this doctrine to international affairs. Renewing Bush’s emphasis on development and democracy promotion could also help to reinforce the notion that America is a benevolent hegemon.

Trade is another area in which Obama could positively impact both America’s image and interests. Here, he has backpedaled from Bush’s pro-free-trade stance, imposing tariffs on Chinese tires, inserting “Buy American” provisions into the stimulus bill and the “Cash For Clunkers” program, and allowing agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to languish in the Senate. Such actions hurt the odds of resurrecting the Doha Round of international trade negotiations, which broke down last year. Ever since the end of World War II, removing barriers to global commerce has been a key goal of the U.S. and its allies. Free trade not only contributes to long-term economic growth, but it also ensures closer ties between nations, and thus reduces the possibility of conflict. If Obama were to repudiate his previous positions and commit to reviving the Doha Round, he would remind the world that America is capable of providing global leadership on these sorts of seemingly intractable problems.

But ultimately, Obama must acknowledge that America’s image is a compilation of so many factors, most of them out of his control, that changing it within a short span of time would be an impossible task. Indeed, on some issues, seeking international approval could be detrimental to America’s best interests. Anti-terrorism policy is one example. Measures that have drawn the ire of foreign leaders, including harsh interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, and detention facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, are also an important line of defense against future attacks.

The best route to follow lies between the extremes of the Bush era and the early months of the Obama presidency. America’s allies have a lot to offer in the way of diplomatic support and international prestige, and can lend legitimacy to its military ventures. They should not be ignored or marginalized. At the same time, their true concern is security, and if America can no longer ensure their safety, Europeans and others will look elsewhere for protection. Obama needs to balance conciliation with displays of toughness, while employing his personal appeal to rally support for shared causes such as human rights and nuclear non-proliferation. If he takes these steps, he will be able to cultivate increased respect for America abroad without sacrificing its interests.