In addition to nation building, creating an environment hostile to terrorists also requires better deployment of “soft power,” according to Nye.
“You can’t do it without winning the hearts and minds,” Nye said. “You see this not as a clash of civilizations but a civil war within Islam.”
But as a reaction to the increased threat of terrorism, the United States is backing away from one of the most powerful weapons in its soft power arsenal—education.
The same bureaucracies that mistakenly allowed the Sept. 11 hijackers into the country are now overreacting in regard to student visas, Nye said, limiting America’s ability both to woo young scholars with its ideals and to transplant those values abroad.
Given prior commitments in Iraq, carving out a successful foreign policy also requires a major departure from preferred business as usual for the Bush administration according to the panelists—reforging bonds with traditional Western European allies and cultivating an arena in which multilateral action is the norm, not the product of convenience.
Though the administration cast aside several prominent allies in ousting Hussein, the strain placed on its armed forces has encouraged cooperation with Iran, China and North Korea, prompting speculation that the failures in Iraq had ushered in a new era of Bush foreign policy.
“Take people like Paul Wolfowitz, who said we’re going to need 50,000 troops to win the war or control Baghdad,” Nye said. “Now he’ll seem a little less credible.”
But in addition to merely working with its allies when such assistance is required, the next administration must convince its partners that it values their judgment and aid, according to Samantha J. Power, a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School.
Pursuing that course requires “not pretending that history hasn’t happened and reckoning in a way very few politicians have done,” she said.
“Part of this has to be about ‘how can people hear us and take us seriously?’” she added.
Enhanced communication abroad must be mirrored by similar improvements within the U.S. military and among domestic agencies, said Elaine Kamarck, lecturer of public policy at the Kennedy School, or else the United States will not be able to defend itself against modern enemies.
“We had a government that was built for an entirely different time, that was built for the Cold War,” Kamarck said. “What do we do about the question of American intelligence? Do we try to create a sort of American MI-5 or do we work using the existing FBI framework?”
Kamarck did not elaborate on precisely what steps the government ought to take to adapt, but she said that interagency territoriality currently hampers the fight against terror.
Moreover, sharing of information must not be limited to the highest circles of the CIA and FBI, she said, or else its effects will be minimal.
“You want FBI chiefs who are on the ground in Bahrain talking to CIA station chiefs,” Kamarck said. “By the time they’re talking about it in the White House, it’s too late.”
Kamarck also cited the war in Iraq as a clear indication that the U.S. military needs to update its training and structure, preparing more special forces and quick-strike units, in addition to ensuring an adequate number of military police.
Although panelists generally agreed that Sen. John Kerry’s, D-Mass., foreign policy would likely mark a return to increased multilateral action, Gergen questioned the vagueness both candidates have employed in describing future international relations.
“I cannot remember a campaign where the candidates were so opaque about their agenda,” Gergen said. “It does seem to me that the voters ought to be able to go to the polls with more than a sniff.”
—Staff writer Timothy J. McGinn can be reached at mcginn@fas.harvard.edu.