It would also be nice if we could point to our track record which on the hegemonic scale is pretty darned benign, screeching moonbats notwithstanding.

Not in the introspective political sense, but in the extroverted international sense, America is the first great 21st century Liberal nation. Notably, the "old Europe" axis is merely a reactionary phenomena trying to retain past patterns as a mold for casting the future. As the US shifts over the next decade from a post 911 Jacksonian motivation to a more balanced Wilsonian/Hamiltonian approach (it only took 3 weeks to do this with respect to Iraqi policies), the US is going to be forced to define what it represents as its interests internationally. Fortunately, unlike the old school myrmidons who run the Russian, Chinese, and Franco Prussian Foreign Ministries, we seem to have come to recognize that the world no longer is aligned to conform with static alliance structures (a' la mode of the Cold War or pre WWII Fascist/anti Fascist polarities). Just as the antiterror effort requires diffuse and malleable policy alignments, the rest of foreign policy will exhibit shifting roles for the US and its friends. But what is the axis about which the US must turn is what the US stands for in this world, and it should stand for classic Liberalism rather than the casual reactionary role it played sometimes in the latter 20th century.

The perception of intent is something that is built upon trust. If we want to show the people of the world that the United States doesn't intend to use its military and economic might for empire building, then they need to be shown in a way they understand. For some this is as simple as just not bombing their country. For others it's more complex, such as having policies that benefit, or at least don't work to their detriment.

But there's a balance in that. We also need to show that we have that strength, else we get taken advantage of. It's not unlike any other dysfunctional relationship. The difficulty, I think is that the relationship isn't just between nation and nation, but between people. Just because a government has policies in line with American interests, doesn't mean that the people of that nation feel the same way, or vice versa. Terrorists might be funded by governments, but they're created out of resistance to outside forces. Anger at a nation doesn't come from its being perceived as benevolent, just as attacks against it don't come from its being perceived as too strong to fight.

The world's trust in us has taken some serious hits. I'm not saying that we haven't been justified in our actions recently, quite the opposite. But we've scared a lot of people. Regaining, or in some cases creating outright, that trust is going to be difficult, especially in those areas where we've had to use strong arm tactics. Yes, we've saved the people of Baghdad, but they still don't have running water and electricity. They still don't have jobs.

Removing a despotic regime isn't enough. People don't like change. They don't deal with it well. In times of flux it's easy for things to fall apart, for things to shift from one direction to another. The trick is in working toward change, without throwing things into such a state of flux that we make the situation worse. When there is no stability, people will go toward the most stabilizing force around. Hitler used this to great effect in the 30's.

To start, I think that as a nation, as a people, we need to understand the world around us. Whether as friends or enemies, the key to changing various nations' perceptions is by understanding who they are, and, just as importantly, who we are.

Listening to NPR yesterday morning, there was news of the order in Iraq for the populace to surrender all of their heavy weapons (RPGs, etc.). It was reduced in scope from all firearms. The comment from a general in the area about it was that he figured they would be happy to do it, because by having fewer weapons around things would be safer.

This is a classic misunderstanding of people. They have their guns because things are unstable and they don't trust the invading force. Granted, it's a chicken and egg problem. How do you create stability with all these weapons around? How do you make people want to surrender their weapons without stability?

Regardless of what economists think, people aren't rational. Many, especially in a war zone, are going to react out of fear. Until stability can be re-established, people won't want to give up their weapons. This doesn't mean they can't be taken by force, which might be the necessary solution. But taking things by force means risking more distrust.

This matter of trust is a sticky problem, and one that we're going to be combatting for years to come, I'm thinking.

You misunderstand, perhaps, the meaning of "rationality" in classical economics. In that sense, "rational" behavior is action consistent with one's own best interest. In other words, we do things because we want to do them and don't do things we don't want to do. Cigarette smoking is something that we "don't" want to do, but the satisfaction of the addiction outweighs the disinclination to smoke, hence smnokers "want" to smoke.

In the larger economic context, you might be interested in doing some reading on behavioral economics, which, if my guess is right, is a field that will net itself a Nobel prize in the not too distant future.

Thanks, AR. I stand corrected. My understanding of rationality in economics stems from not paying as much attention in school as I should. ;-)

I've met precious few who actually did. I only managed to figure that rational bit out on the fourth or fifth class (and I'm not telling how many were repeats.) ;-)

You do hit, however, on one of the most central elements in the gun control debate - the relationship between firearm availability, feeilngs of security and actual crime rate do not show a simple, easy one-for-one relationship.