Obama and The U.S.A self image
par kawther tradi
institut superieur des etudes appliques en humanites de Gafsa-Tunisie - maitrise en langue et literature englaise 2009
1-American exceptionalism: from a positive idea to a dogmatic attitude:
Americans are very proud of their nation and the qualities they are embracing. Their patriotism, along with their religious morality is the qualities that distinguish them from other people and make the U.S.A different, exceptional from other nations. This exceptionalism is expressed by Walter A.Mcdougal as follows:
From the time when in 1775 Thomas Paine spoke for the revolutionary ethos proclaiming that«we have it in our power to begin the world all over again»the phenomenon of America's deeply«exceptionalism» has been a powerful factor in world politics, alternately inspiring and infuriating America's friends and allies. From the time America emerged as a true great power at the end of the nineteenth century, with the likes of Henry Cabot Lodge qnd Admiral A.T. Mahan advocating a«large» foreign policy, American leaders have been careful to emphasize the idealist motivations that underly their international interventions.(Walter A. Macdougall)
In other words, this is what makes the U.S.A a city upon a hill, a divine city whose destiny is to spread the values reinforced by the Declaration of Independence: values of freedom, liberty and equality. It is the U.S.A duty to stand by the nations lagging behind and make sure that they have free access to these values through positive intervention.
The Americans' increasingly awareness of their identity, their exceptionalism and the role of their nation within the world gave birth to the notion of « Americanism» expressed by David Hill in his book Americanism, What Is IT as follow:
Americanism is what is most original and distinctive in American political conceptions and most characteristic of the American way of life. Americanism is a positive, constructive force and it starts with the idea that the human individual has an intrinsic value... (Hill, p viii)
. Franklin Roosevelt also maintained the same idea about Americanism by stating that:
Americanism signifies the virtues of courage, justice, sincerity and strength- the virtues that made America. (Marie-France Toinet, p219)
Americanism in a few words expresses the notions of American nationalism. It represents both American self-image and the way it is perceived by others. But unfortunately, this strong belief in Americanism turned into a dogmatic attitude. American today are trying to keep their distance from other nations by drawing a clear dividing line between themselves-as the nation uniquely blessed by God- and foreigners. This idea was expressed in an article taken from the Japanese Journal of American studies written by Seong-Ho Lim, a professor in Kyung Hee University, Seoul South Korea as follow: «the us versus them attitude.» This attitude was strengthened by the 9/11 terror which makes the Americans think that they are living in a perpetual danger, a danger whose source is this «them» which stands for the other who is stranger, and the only way to minimize his threat is by avoiding him or «them». Another aspect of this dogmatism is the U.S.A's strong belief in her divine mission aiming at spreading morality, freedom and democracy by trying to play the role of 6(*)«The Big Brother» who makes sure that everything is okay. Due to this dogmatic attitude, the U.S.A, is giving herself the right to intervene in the issues of other nations and impose "the made in America" values and principales through a hawkish policy preferring the use of military power rather than peaceful intervention. So, the U.S.A launched what Robert Kagan described in his article «End of Dreams, Return to History» as «blind crusade» on behalf of democracy:
In such an international envioronment the United State should continue, as it has in the past, to prefer democracy over autocracy and to use its influence to promote the former when opportunities arise. This more than just a matter of moral preference, although Americans often cannot avoid expressing and working on that preference...The United States should discourage moves toward autocracy in democratic nations, both by punishing steps that undo democratic institution and by providing support to those institutions and individuals who favor democratic principles. It should isolate autocratic governments when possible while encouraging internal pressure for democratic reform... the United States should express support for democracy in word and deed without expecting immediate success. It should support the development of liberal institutions and practices... the United States need not engage in a blind crusade on behalf of democracy everywhere at all times, nor need it seek a violent confrontation with the autocratic powers... (Robert Kagan)
These dogmatic attitudes shared by all Americans whether politicians or ordinary people gave birth to an atmosphere of animosity towards the U.S.A. An atmosphere that emptied the term «Big Brother» from all its positive implications: peace, fraternity and cooperative relations between America and other nations.
2-The Events of 9/11: a Turning Point in the American History.
No one has the audacity to think that the U.S.A, the supreme military power with its anti ballistic missiles known by their accuracy, weapons of mass destruction, high technology, and intelligence agencies could one day be a target of military operations like those of 9/11.
Sebtember the 11th, 2001 was an unforgettable day in the history of humanity, let alone America, a day in which people all over the globe stood mesmerized in front of unbelievable images, images closer to an action movie than to reality. No one could believe at that time that the Twin Towers of Wall Street Center at New York-one of the most vital accommodations in the U.S.A core- were being totally destroyed by an air crash, causing the death of almost7(*) 3OOO people.
This event deeply affected American people. It changed the way they perceive themselves, their nation and the global role of their nation. It also reintroduced the term «terrorism» to the political scene. Who is responsible for these attacks? Is he an individual, an organization or a whole nation? Is he really more powerful and more intelligent than the U.S.A and its intelligence agencies to organize such devastating events without being even identified? All these issues were left to the Americans to muse about, raising a huge question mark and revealing that the U.S.A remains vulnerable despite its military supremacy.
This very fact made the Americans lose their sense of security. The 9/11 trauma injected them with a kind of phobia about the others; they kept their distance from foreigners and started to perceive them like enemies. 8(*)War became their natural states: who may know? What if they were attacked again on their own territory? No one can guarantee that the event of 9/11 will not happen again! All these public attitudes gave the green light to George.W. Bush and his administration to launch what Bush calls «war on terrorism», with Osama Bin Laden being the n°1 accused of this entire. Bush decided to fight all terrorists, dictators and autocratic leaders around the world and erode them. He was determined to restore the Americans' sense of security and severely punish those responsible for those attacks and the ones financing them. That is why he put all the focus on force and military power. In fact, an excessive use of military power.
Before examining its contribution to the collapse of U.S.A, let's first of all define what neo-conservatism is.9(*) In fact, the history of neo-conservatism goes back to more than 30 years. One may classify it among movements but this classification overestimates the nature of neo-conservatism. That is why Irving Kristol describes it as a sort of «persuasion» rather than a movement.
Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke were aware of this by stating:
Let us now proceed to meet the neo-conservatives. Their movement is not a card -carrying organization. They do not hold meetings or conventions. There is no absolute divinding line between who is and who is not a neo-conservative. Indeed the word «movement» may exaggerate the degree of intellectual cohesion. Irving Cristol, who accepts the title of neo-conservatism «godfather», prefers to describe neo-conservatism as a «persuasion». (Irving Kristol, p23-25)
1/-a belief found even in religion dealing with the natural state of man to choose between good and evil and this became the natural state not only for man but also for states where the good ones have to fight the bad ones.
2/-the use of military power is what determines relationships between the states.
3/-The Middle East and the Islamic World in general are perceived as the main source of danger for the American interests.
Neo-conservatism deeply believes in these three principales and puts them in practice in the international scene.12(*) The U.S.A started to judge states according to moral criteria in terms of good and evil and thus, the role of the U.S.A is to fight the evil nations.
13(*)Neo-conservatism also called for American military supremacy and a unilateral policy in which the U.S.A will keep its distance from international treaties and diplomatic agencies which thought to restrict the U.S power. A close scrutiny shows that all these ideas and beliefs played a key role in establishing the main features which characterized American politics especially as far as its international affairs are concerned, and14(*) what made it so is that all these views have been adopted by members who held or still hold positions in the American government like I. Lewis Libby: a special advisor to the president, vice president Dick Cheney, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld ... This is what shaped the basis of American foreign policy since at least the McKinley's presidency; the American tendency to show off its military strength and its supremacy: notions that stem from neo-conservative ideals. A call for morality in which the U.S.A sees itself as the good nation whose duty is to restore peace and punish all the evil countries. This is what neo conservatism calls15(*) judging the American relations with other nations in black and white. Both Kaplan and Bill Kristol- strong supporters for neo-conservatism- praised the role of America.
They stated that:
America must not only be the world's policeman or its sheriff, it must be its bacon and guide. (Kaplan and Kristoll, PI2I)
And in order for its mission to be successful, the U.S.A today-just like the neo-conservative vision-is working alone without caring about the assent of its allies or the diplomatic agencies which will prevent it from achieving its aims related to spreading freedom and democracy.
As mentioned above, the U.S.A always considered the Islamic world the main source of terror, in other words, the bad ones who needed to be severely punished. This idea was deeply rooted especially after the attacks of 9/11 which were related to the organization of Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden. These attacks provided the ground for the neo-conservatism to deeply implement its views and give the U.S.A the right to further spread its moral arrogance, increase its use of military power and launch more wars on behalf of democracy. In order to convince people with the legitimacy of this change, the neo-conservatives spread what Halper and Clarke called neurosis
They [the neo-conservatives] manipulated the institutional power of their own positions to draw the American public into what can be best described as a synthetic 16(*)neurosis that supported their template for regime change in the Middle East. With the Americans so actually sensitive to any threat to national security after 9/11, the agenda of the possible was thus transformed. (Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, p 203).
But unfortunately, the neo-conservative principles that the U.S.A is embracing played a crucial role in mutilating U.S.A's self-image. It gave birth to an international scene characterized by disequilibrium; an international scene in which the U.S.A is the core body and the role of the other states is of less importance: 17(*)this represents simply the unipolar world. This policy of unilateralism and unipolarity costs the U.S.A dear by making it loose all its friends and allies. Due to the views that America is holding about the Islamic world, it is facing a problem of legitimacy there.18(*) People in this part of the world share a strong feeling of antipathy towards the U.S.A as a result of the stereotypes that America is trying to root in the minds of people by portraying them as terrorists and extremists.
In fact, not only were the allies and the Islamic World opposed to the neo-conservatives'principales but ironically the Americans themselves, they refused their nation's obsession with military build-up and they began to question the genuineness of the American global mission: the sacred mission of democracy, freedom and human rights turned into hawkish policies of extreme force and excessive use of power.
American leaders always believe in the divine role of the U.S.A to spread ideals of democracy and freedom in the world and fight terrorism. That is why they put the focus on military power on the one hand and protect the American interests by giving America the right to intervene in the international affairs on the other hand. These are the two features which characterize the American administration right from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency till George W Bush's.
In fact, 19(*)it was Woodrow Wilson who put the framework of this administration. He introduced a program which gave the U.S.A the right to intervene in the affairs of the foreign states worldwide in the interests of democracy and peace. A close scrutiny shows that there is a big similarity between these Wilsonian principales and Bush administration. This tendency towards Wilsonianism is embedded in Bush doctrine. A doctrine concerned mostly with the international affairs. The green light that Wilson gave to the U.S.A to intervene in the international affairs through the use of military power is represented through the preemptive military action for the sake of peace; this becomes the slogan the American administration raises to justify its policy abroad. But unfortunately, this slogan that Bush and his administration strongly believe in damaged the American self-image abroad, it is true that this principales comes out of noble causes but the U.S.A dogmatic attitudes about the divinity of its role on one hand and the after math of the 9/11 make Bush turn his fight against terrorism into a policy of excessive use of military power and into a violation of states' souvreignity on the behalf of democracy and freedom. This policy can be seen through many examples like the American intervention in Kosovo and the invasion of Iraq. Robert Kagan further explained this idea. He says:
«Americans have always had this unique spur to global involvement, an ideological righteousness that inclines them to meddle in the affairs of others, to seek change, to insist on imposing their avowed universal principals."(Robert Kagan)
Among the reasons concerning George.W. Bush's policies in addition to those mentioned above which contributed in spreading universal feeling of hostility and anger towards the U.S.A is unilateralism;
What Robert Kagan defines as:
A willingness to act without the sanction of international bodies such as the United Nation Security Council or the unanimous approval of allies. (Robert Kagan)
This tendency towards unilateralism is related to the American foreign policy and20(*) started to be shaped after the Soviet collapse. It is one of the principals that the neo-conservatism strongly believed in and that the American leaders are trying to embody through establishing certain criteria to determine their relation with their allies, the diplomatic agencies and international treaties. This attitude stems from a strong belief that all these different international bodies will restrict the power of the U.S.A and hinder her from fulfilling its divine mission. This tendency towards unilateralism is manifested through the U.S's willingness to act in the international scene without taking any consideration to the interests of other countries as far as making foreign policies decisions is concerned. This very fact is crystallized through the attitudes that the Iraqi war. The U.S.A waged this war against Iraq without getting the approval of the U.N. it is also shown through the attitudes that America takes towards the international treaties; in fact, the U.S.A is notorious by its disrespect and indifference towards these treaties which put the international scene on order.
The American policy based mainly on unilateralism and preemptive action- what Perle defines as:
As the emerging option of choice, it advanced a concept-the right of preemption- designed to transform, and indeed deconstruct, those organizations, states, and regions deemed a threat... (Perle)
The issue of international security has a lot to do with the problem of legitimacy that the U.S.A is facing today. It alleviated the strong feelings of hatred, antipathy and distrust towards the U.S.A which is no longer seen as a benevolent sponsor but rather as a threat for the other nations'interests.
What Is the Problem with the U.S.A?
Source: Pew Center 2003a, 22
In this table, one can note the opinions of those who have unfavorable attitudes to the U .S. The majority is opposed to Bush's policies; they think thqt that the latter is a bigger problem more than America in general.
5-The Iraqi War: the knock down punch:
The American administration tried to convince the international scene by 21(*)presenting strong evidences about the Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons and 22(*)its relationship with al-Qaeda. This scenario was presented and deeply rooted in the public opinion.Halper and Kagan said:
Thus, the process of establishing a logic in people's minds that led from the terrorist attacks through the war on terror to distination Saddam Hussein was relentless. Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were morphed into the same enemy. But the scare mongering was highly selective in terms of the wider strategic environmemt. (Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, 210).
23(*)This was the discourse that the Secretary of State Collin Powell presented to the U.N Security Council in February 2003. He tried to gather facts that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He built the case on the fact 24(*)that Iraq was buying the uranium from Niger.
What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior... the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction. (Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, 211)
Yet, he left a lot of unanswerable questions justifying this with the fact that he should protect the security of his sources on one hand, and the refusal of the Iraqi administration to cope with the commissions and the inspectors sent to look for undiscovered weapons of mass destruction by hiding evidence:
I can't tell you every thing. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years , is deeply troubling. (Halper and Kagan, 211).
But both the U.N Security and the CIA were not convinced with the case that Colin Powell had 25(*)«presented to the world» since it was full with gaps.26(*) The CIA started to investigate in this issue by sending a former state department official Joseph Wilson who refuted all these allegations. Despite this, the American administration held tightly on what turned to be false assumptions and determined to wage the war against Iraq. Not only were the nuclear claiming false ones-as Scowcroft argued that:
Saddam Hussein was Unlikely to risk investements in weapons of muss destruction, nor tempt an attack on Iraq, by handing such weapons to terrorists who could use them for their purposes, leaving Baghdad as the return address. Besides, it was clear to Saddam Hussein, as a power-hungry survivor, that threatening to use weapons even for blackmail-much less actually using them-would open him and his regime to an immediate and devastating response from an unflinching United States. (Scowcroft).
But also all the other assumptions that the US administration had created-influenced by the neo-conservatives. In fact, there are no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. 27(*)It was true that al- Zarqawi spent two months in Baghdad for medical reasons but this didn't mean that there was a cooperative relationship between Bin -Laden and Saddam Hussein especially that the latter was totally opposed to Bin -Laden's ideology and perceived him as an enemy. Brent Scowcroft, the National Security advisor to Gerald Ford and George. W.Bush commented on this by stating that «there was scant evidence to tie Saddam Husein to Al-Qaeda and even to 9/11.»
And even if the claim that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons was true, Saddam Hussein was not that idiot to wage a nuclear war against the U.S.A knowing in advance that he was going to be the biggest loser. By this token and just like what Maureen Dowd said:
it was no wonder Americans were confused; the United States was about to go to war against a country that did not attack it on Septamber II, as did al-Qaeda; that did not intercept its plannes, as did North Korea, that did not finance al-Qaeda, as did Saudi Arabia; that was not home to Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants, as was Pakistan; and was not a host body for terrorists, as were Iran and Syria. (Maureen Dowd, 385)
This is how the evidences upon which the American administration built the case against Iraq turned out to be false ones. There was no relation between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein due to what a Defense Intelligence staff described as «reciprocal mistrust and incompatible ideologies». There was also no concrete evidence about the presence of nuclear weapons on Iraq. The international bodies represented by the U.N Security Council and the CIA were opposed to these allegations and recommended that the US Administration let go of its charges toward Iraq but the former insisted on what it thought to be facts and tried to convey them through the speeches that Bush delivered:
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons... the Iraqi regime is building facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons... the regime is seeking a nuclear bomb. (Bush)
A month later, he repeated the nuclear claim:
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. (Bush)
We have experienced the threat of Septamber II, and America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. (Remarks by the President on Iraq)
Then, he promised that:
We will lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. (Remarks by the President at Louisville)
This strong determination to wage the war despite the weakness of the evidence presented and despite the strong opposition of the international bodies asserted its unilateralism since it was a self made decision.
It was the US administration who made the call for the Iraqi War as a response to the 9/11, it was also the US administration that created the "new reality"through what Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke called «the discursive construction of reality».
According to them:
The notion of discursive construction of reality asserts that one of the principal functions of language is to provide an intelligeable conceptual framework. Social reality and the relations, entities and beliefs within it are regarded not as determined and fixed but as created in and through language. Our perceptions of something, the meaning or significance it holds in our lives and the value that we ascribe to it, is discursively constructed- that is defined by words- and changes with the way that we speak about it. How reality is discussed and represented greatly influences our responses and judgements. (Stephan Halpher and Jonathan Clarke, 206-207).
And justified its call for the war by linking Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden and it was also the Americans who executed this plan without the international assent, supported only by the British government which stood by the Americans right from the beginning by helping them to gather information about the Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons.
The truth is that the Iraqi war was or a revenge for the 9/11, nor a fight against terrorism and the possession of nuclear weapons, according to Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol:
...the Iraq War was not about terrorism; it was about the pivotal relationship between Sadda Hussein and the assertion of American power. Hussein provided, in effect, the opportunity to clarify America's global objectives and moral obligations. His continued survival in power was a metaphor for all that had gone wrong wih American foreign policy sice the Soviet collapse in the sense that the first Bush administration's Realpolitik and Clinton's wishful liberalism had left the Iraqi dictator in power. Iraq was now the arena in which to demonstrate the crucial tenets of neo-conservative doctrine: military preemption, regime change, the merits of exporting democracy, and a vision of American power that's fully engaged and never apologetic. (Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol).
But unfortunately, the international response toward this war was outrageous. No one was totally convinced by the legitimacy of this war due 28(*)to the weakness of evidences; that is why the majority of people worldwide were opposed to it. War in fact intensified feelings of hatred and antipathy toward the U.S.A not only among Muslim people, but also among Europeans. Both sides of the world believed that the US-led war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein made the world a more dangerous place.
Falling Support for the U.S-led War on terror
Source: 2005 survey trends provided by the Office
Research, U.S Department of State
This table shows that the support that people held toward the U.S.A has falling down as people are no longer convinced with the legitimacy of the American-led war on terror incarnated in the Iraq war.
By this token, Osama Bin Laden was no longer seen in the majority of the Islamic countries as the terrorist but rather as29(*) "the good guy" and trust-worthy. this was what the 2006 Pew Poll indicated by stating that:" 38% of Pakistanis and 24% of Jordanians have a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden to do the right thing" and solve the world problems, unlike the USA which takes decisions unilaterally and without taking into consideration the interests of the other countries as far as making foreign policy decisions is concerned. So, these feelings of animosity were not targeting the American public but rather the American policy makers, and more specifically the American president George. W. Bush and his administration. On the other hand, both the Muslim countries and the European ones saw-according to a 2004Pew poll- that the real reason behind the war was not to reduce the threat of terrorism-like what the American administration claimed- 30(*)but to facilitate the US control of Middle East oil and domination of the world.
This was how the Iraqi War was the golden opportunity that all the opposed to Bush and his policies characterized by unilateralism and-what Muslims see as- unlimited support to Israel were waiting for to exhibit these overwhelming feelings of anger, antipathy and mistrust and metamorphose them into violent demonstrations and protests almost everywhere around the globe, blaming Bush and his administration for all the wars and all the violence and comparing him to the vice Israeli prime minister Sharon who was classified among war criminals because he killed hundreds of innocent Palestinian people in one of the notorious massacre "Sabra and Shatila" and other attacks, thus , calling for the persecution of Bush.
This was how the Iraqi War-unlike what the US policy makers thought- put an end to the glories and pride that America was living in and gave birth to a new international context in which the U.S.A asserted its self-image as the unilateral nation whose ultimate aim is to protect its own interests without taking into account the interests of the other nations and without forgetting its role in widening the gap between the Islamic World and the rest of the world by mutilating the image of the Muslim people through lies and rumors.
This what Marc Ginsberg expressed by stating that:
It has been virtually impossible to retrench and regain our balance in the hearts and minds of Arabs as debacle after debacle has steadily chipped away at our standing. Poll after poll confirms that from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, America's reputation has fallen through the basement floor. Of course, these failures will have to be reversed before anything in the way of success can be measured. (Marc Ginsberg).
* 6 Seong-Ho Lim`Clashing Perceptions of America in Trans-Pacific Relations: The Case of Anti-Americanism in South Korea'. The Japaneese Journal of American Studies, No 18 (2007), p 149.
* 7 Kagan, Of Paradise, p 51
* 8 Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, `America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order', Cambridge, p 3.
* 9 Stefan Halpher and Jonathan Clarke,`America Alone:The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order', Cambridge, p9.
* 10 Irving Kristol, ` `The Neo-Conservative Persuasion,' `Weekly Standards, August25, 2003,pp23-25.
* 11 James Fallows, ``The Age of Morduch,''Atlantic Monthly, Septamber 2003,p90.
* 12 William Bennetm, Why We Fight: Moral Clarityand War on Terrorism (Washington D.C: Regnery, 2003), p.56.
* 13 Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order( New York: Knopf, 2003), p.3.
* 14 Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p14.
* 15 William Bennet, Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on terrorism( Wqshingthon, D.C: Regnery, 2003), p.56.
* 16 Neurosis: strong feeling of worry and fear.
* 17 Robert Kagan, End of Dreams, Return to History, Policy Review
* 18 Andrew Kohut, America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
* 19 Erez Manela, Wilson's Radical Vision for Global Governance, Harvard University, p 4.
* 20 Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: the Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p 97
* 21 Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order, Camdridge, p, 212.
* 22 Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone : The Neo-Conservatives and The Global Order, Camdridge, p 201.
* 23 Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone : The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p 211.
* 24 Condolezza Rice, Why We Know Iraq Is lying, New York Times, January 28, 2003, p.A25.
* 25 For Full Details, see Michael Duffy and James Carney, « a Question of Trust », Time, January 28, 2003, p.23
* 26 SeymourM .Hersh, the New Yorker, October27, 2003, pp.77-87
* 27 Stefan Halper and Robert Kagan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge, p212.
* 28 Milbank and Pincus, « Bush Aides. »
* 29 Andrew Kohut, America's Image in the World: Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
* 30 Andrew Kohut, America's image, Findings from the Pew Global Attitudes Project.