We now know ‘how,’ but who'll ask ‘why’(we lost our reputation as "goodguy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963676/

We now know ‘how,’ but who'll ask ‘why’?(how to we change the fact that we are ranked in polls by many as a greater threat to world peace than Osama bin Laden)Dealing with flawed policies, not just government org charts

By Michael Moran Brave New World columnist MSNBC

<snip>
Hand “real” sovereignty to Iraqis: The administration may be laying the groundwork for this already, with more references from top policymakers to the fact that “eventually, the Iraqis will have to take this thing in their own hands.” There is no consensus on when the bulk of U.S. forces should leave, but also no guarantee that sticking around ad infinitum and taking (and inflicting) casualties will make it happen, either. At some point, a new line in the sand must be drawn. If post-Saddam Iraq is viable, it will survive. If it is not, better that we learn it now, before mounting casualties and a dead-end mission demoralize our military.

Re-engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The Bush administration’s tack on the “peace process” when it came to office was understandable; Bill Clinton had just spent the last few months of his tenure cajoling both sides into a deal that appeared astoundingly reasonable, only to have it collapse at the last minute. But 9/11 should have ended the deep freeze on Mideast diplomacy. Instead, the new tack was away from mediation and toward an almost uncritical backing of Israeli positions. Al-Qaida’s motives on 9/11 had nothing to do with helping “dispossessed Palestinians.” But the Bush administration’s lack of progress in bringing the two sides together has made it easy for al-Qaida to portray America as Israel’s bully, and Israel as America’s puppet. That feeds the deepest vein of cynicism in the world about America, and in the long run, does Israel no favors, either.

Refocus on Afghanistan: “Imagine failing, and imagine turning over the world to the people who want to chop off people's heads.” That’s Donald Rumsfeld Tuesday on Iraq, and to a point, he is absolutely correct. But the stakes are higher still in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, there is no controversy over America’s efforts in Afghanistan: its regime harbored al-Qaida, and al-Qaida trained and launched the 9/11 attacks from there. The 11,000 American troops in Afghanistan focus almost completely on al-Qaida, while Afghanistan’s own problems are festering.

Create a “target nations” action group: In a world where nuclear terrorism has become a distinct possibility, allowing nuclear weapons to proliferate is in the interest of none of the world’s great powers. But some have a higher stake than others. Russia, India, Japan, the United States and Israel have a particular common interest in preventing nuclear proliferation because they stand out, for various reasons, as the most likely targets of it. There may be time when pre-emptive action must be taken on this issue. When that time comes, this is the kind of group you want behind you.

Champion the enlargement of the Security Council: This makes sense by several measures, and regardless of which side of America’s political abyss one stands. The first measure is logic: The world of 2004 is very different from the one that founded the United Nations in 1945. (How else to explain separate permanent seats for France and Britain?) Only the United States could broker the kind of compromise that can reform the body, and doing so would earn it the thanks of many who now feel powerless. Besides, the Left should welcome three or four new permanent members to restrain superpower

unilateralism: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan are the most often-mentioned candidates. And for the Right, which takes pleasure in watching the United Nations bumble and fail, what better guarantee than to add several new voices to the caterwauling chorus that is the world body’s top table? <snip>