Times these days are hardly good for America, at least when it comes to our foreign policy and image abroad. In countless conflicts accross the globe, from Lebanon to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, it's difficult to find a recent success story for American political influence or military power. Public opinion in virtually all corners of the world has turned virulently anti-American. "I just hope that America can resist getting their sticky little fingers involved in this one," writes one poster on the BBC message boards with regards to Cuba. "When will America realize that it is the source of all misery in the world," bleats another hyperventilating Canadian.

Even in the US, one hardly needs to travel far to hear individuals or various political groups pillory America as the single greatest threat to world peace today. These opinions however, are not only emphatically wrong, but also hopelessly naive. They grossly overestimate the reach and depth of American influence, as plainly evidenced by the most recent conflict in Lebanon, and the ongoing turmoil in Iraq. Were America indeed the all-powerful nation that its detractors claim it is, would not the American government have just as easy a time resolving crises as it does supposedly causing them.

The result of this over-emphasis on American power has produced a poisonous, self-defeating contradiction in the Arab world and throughout much of Europe. Since America is the sole source of suffering in the world, it must therefore also be lone power capable of relieving that suffering. If America can destroy any society it chooses, it is surely the only entity capable of also rebuilding that society. Nowhere is this contradiction more clear than in Iraq, where many accuse the US of destroying what was a perfectly well functioning country (leveler heads recognize that this was simply not the case), while simultaneously blaming it for not producing an acceptable outcome. The reality however, is that America has neither the ability to destroy Iraqi society, nor alter it in any meaningful way.

Iraq was before the invasion already, at its core a nation divided by bitter religious and ethnic tensions, held together only by the brutality of Sadaam Hussein. Iraq had no democratic institutions, little respect for minorities and human rights, and was demarcated along sectarian lines. Today, despite the expenditure of hundreds of billions of American dollars, the presence of over 130,000 American troops, and the full engagement of the US government in a three and a half-year campaign, little has changed.

The relative inability of the US government to influence the actions of other nations and other groups also came to fore in Lebanon just over a month ago. As the Israeli military charged headlong into southern Lebanon, America seemed to be caught off guard. Its initial response was to remain on the sidelines, not wanting to commit to any major intervention. While many frenzied anti-Americans preposterously claim that this was because the US relishes the destruction of muslim lands and people, a more reasonable explaination is that the American government simply could not stop the conflict with a waive of its hand. As one of only a handful of western nations still willing to defend its democratic principles, the US government could no more demand that Israel unconditionally end a perfectly legitimate campaign than it can bring peace to Iraq or end the genocide in the Sudan. Nor could it hope to exercise any influence over Hezbollah whatever. So what are the limits of American power?

Many today consider it a question of strategy and means. America has become too bellicose, too unwilling to use soft power, and too abrasive claim even the staunchest of US allies. But this also ignores the failure of less aggresive American strategies to bring about a lasting peace in Lebanon and Palestine. President Clinton tried for eight years to get Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace agreement, but failed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a US president being more engaged and more diplomatic than Clinton.

America is neither the cause of, nor the solution to most of the world's problems. The relative success or failure of a society is by and large in the hands of members of that society. Nations will always reap the benefits or the misery of the choices that they make. People in southern Lebanon choose to support Hezbollah, both tacitly and materially. They allow Hezbollah fighters to reside in their neighborhoods, give them free reign to transport weapons through their villages, and they listen in agreement to the tirades of Hassan Nasrallah. They therefore bear sole responsibility for the recent destruction of their country by Israel.

In Iraq, although the claim that the war was botched carries much merit, America cannot by itself create the society it desires. It is hard to imagine that even a flawlessly executed US campaign with twice the troop levels and more international support could have created a substantially better situation. Iraqis had a perfectly good opportunity to embrace democracy and peace, but instead they chose to slaughter eachother.

Palestinians, likewise have a choice. For many years after the creation of Israel, they lived in relative calm and prosperity with the Israelis, and they can do so again if they choose. They will only achieve peace when the start valuing the future more than the past, and start loving their children more than they hate Israel. Palestinians can, if they wish, reconcile their difference with Israel, and build a better future for their children than the one that they are destined for now. Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis are not victims of Israel or America. They are victims of their own hatred and their own inability to simply get along with their neighbors.