"We often hear political rhetoric and bombast, and not constructive commentary," he said.

"Your policy toward the Arab world must change and be reformed in order to overcome the slump in America's standing in my country, and in every other Arab and Muslim country," al-Faisal said in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

The Bush administration has come under fire for its approach to many Arab countries, with opinion polls showing growing anti-Americanism.

Recent calls by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a "new Middle East" and her description in July of the Lebanon-Israeli war as the "birth pangs" of democracy were ridiculed by most Arab media.

Conscious of how these statements were perceived in the Middle East, U.S. diplomats have tried to tone down rhetoric in recent weeks.

During a visit to Egypt on Tuesday, Rice was asked how she saw a "new" Middle East. The top U.S. diplomat quickly responded she preferred to talk about a "future" Middle East.

Rice, who was in Israel and the Palestinian Territories on Wednesday, made her Middle East trip partly to get support from moderate Arab nations to revive the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process.

Al-Faisal said it was time for the United States to play a more active role in resolving that conflict and he said his government had put pressure on Washington to do more.

"America has not been playing that role for the past few years," he said, adding, "You solve that problem and then you can go on and solve other problems in the area."

Saudi Arabia proposed a peace plan in 2002, which the Israelis have long seen as a nonstarter. But on Wednesday, a cabinet minister from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's party voiced some support for negotiations on the basis of the Saudi plan.

Al-Faisal said Arab leaders also wanted to push the Saudi plan. "Hopefully, we can get something moving about that," he said.

The Saudi plan calls for Israel to quit all land it conquered in the 1967 Middle East war, the formation of a Palestinian state and a solution for Palestinian refugees who fled what is now the Jewish state.

In exchange, the Palestinians and Arab nations would establish peaceful relations with Israel.

As for me, I laughed the most at U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack's statement, "It was a good week for American diplomacy." If McCormack meant that Rice was able to convince her boss, Bush, to be a little more balanced and calm in his U.N. address, then he's right. Perhaps it can be said that the diplomatic community, which has had difficulty reining in its cowboy President over recent years, had a local success. But if he's claiming that it was a good week for the U.S. from the angle of tangible benefits to it, and if he genuinely believed this, I would be quite surprised.

At the General Assembly, one could say that Washington either left empty-handed or took a step backward in terms of the most important issues it has wanted to resolve. For example, they found no support for the idea of enforcing an embargo against Iran over to its nuclear program. Half-heartedly but helplessly, the U.S. agreed to give Tehran more time. The U.S. effort to obtain international intervention in Darfur, which they call a genocide, also had no results. And even from its closest NATO allies, Washington isn't getting the degree of assistance it wants against the Taliban uprising that flared up in Afghanistan. In Iraq, it has come face-to-face with its destiny. In short, by displaying at least passive resistance on many issues important to the U.S., the world is in fact punishing the Bush Administration. It is forming an anti-U.S. bloc.

This silent but effective resistance the world is applying against the Bush Administration is leading to differing reactions in Washington. Instead of learning a lesson, White House supported think-tanks are becoming even more obstinate, particularly the neocons and the right-wing Israeli lobby. As for more moderate groups, they are now beginning to find the courage to speak out against the attitudes that have led to the deep diplomatic helplessness that the U.S. has fallen victim to.

For example, despite all the protests of Secretary of State Rice and some Israeli lobbyists, the Council on Foreign Relations' gave Iranian President Ahmadinejad an opportunity to speak. This was a significant example of moral courage. Chairman Richard Haass explained that "opening the doors" of the Council to someone that many Jews have compared to Hitler this way: "The United States gets itself in trouble when it limits its options and approaches diplomacy as a value judgment. It's not obvious to me, looking at the last 50 or 60 years, that we paid a price for talking to the Soviets. At the end of all the talking, we won the Cold War."

If this approach by Dr. Haass, who was the director of Political Planning at the State Department during Bush's first term, had been dominant in Bush Administration today, neither the United States nor the world would now have such a tremendous headache. One can't say, "I won't talk to people I don't like; I'll just overthrow the regime with preventive attacks or by secret means and all will be fine." Even if you are a superpower, you can't do this. Even the U.S., which covers almost a third of the U.N. budget, can't prevent itself from ridicule and insult at that institution. Its authority does not equal its contribution. If it does, it is only through the use of force.

Diplomacy is the art of not cutting off dialogue with an enemy, drinking coffee with your adversaries when necessary and trying to will goodwill by sharing credit with others. But if a cup of coffee is worth 40 years of warm feeling, a bomb does 40 years of damage. For this reason, calls are increasing in the United States to remove obstacles to direct talks with the Iranian regime, which eagerly wants dialogue, and for Bush to keep his bombs in his pocket.

A peaceful solution to dispute between the U.S. and Iran would make the entire world more comfortable, including Turkey. If the Democrats take over Congress in the November elections, Bush's margin for hasty action will decrease. I hope he has learned his lesson in Iraq. But unfortunately due to Bush's character, no one can be certain that he will forego a fight with Iran or the world.

Bring out the nails. In the first neoconservative neo-colony of Afghanistan, the Taliban are on the rise like the fabled phoenix rising from the ashes. Once again they openly control most of southern Afghanistan, setting up a shadow administration. Coalition forces are getting the beating of their lives from the rag tag Taliban. The whining and griping among coalition troops over their looming defeat increases with every passing day. Meanwhile on the Pakistani side of the frontier, rather than trying to reinforce failure, General Musharraf has beaten a hasty retreat from bordering Waziristan. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. Drunk with delusions of grandeur and self-adulation, the Empire seekers made bad choices in Afghanistan when they ignored the warnings of Sir Olaf Caroe, the last British governor of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. Caroe said: "Unlike other wars, Afghan wars become serious only when they are over." Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The Empire seekers failed to understand, and still don't, that it's not the phenomenon of the Taliban that writes the epitaph on the grave of the Empire-builder's dream, but it's Pashtun RealVideo culture itself that is responsible. They failed to study the history that the British know only too well, but chose to withhold from their gullible partners. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The Empire seekers have tried to defeat with brawn what they should have conquered with brain. They failed to realize that the rise and fall of the Taliban was but a brief moment in history in this rugged part of the world, and that Taliban or no Taliban, resisting foreign occupation is a way of life for them. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The Empire seekers failed to comprehend that the Afghan Pashtuns may have been briefly subdued, but invariably they bounce back against their enemies with renewed strength and malice. They are equally renowned for their loyalty to friends and for their fierce blood feuds and hatred of their enemies. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The Empire seekers refused to learn from history that as far as their blood feuds are concerned, the patience of the Afghan Pashtuns is as great as their mighty Hindukush [mountains]. These are some of the most battle-hardened tribal people on earth, having withstood the military might of Alexander the Great, the Mogul Emperors, the Soviets and the British. They don't consider death too high a price to pay for their honor. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The Empire seekers ignored the wisdom passed on to them from the Europeans since the days of Alexander. Afghanistan is a vast expanse of desolate plains and untamed mountains, ferocious warriors, uncompromising Islam, vicious tribal rivalries, and a complex politics that entwines bloodlines, chivalry, religion and history. It is a land of great mystery that should have been left to find stability on its own. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. In Iraq too, for the rigor mortis has nearly set in to corpse of the Empire-builder's dream. There is a sense of finality that hasn't existed during the past four years of occupation of that unfortunate country. Success in Iraq is no longer defined as defeating the sandal-footed resistance fighters, but rather to hold on long enough for something or someone to relieve the bogged down, war-weary and dehumanized American troops. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. The recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate calls Iraq a "cause celebre RealVideo" not for resisters of American occupation, but for "terrorists." This deliberate attempt to confuse the two is likely to cost the Empire seekers more dearly with each passing day. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace in an interview to be broadcast Oct. 1, that the Bush Administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence in Iraq, especially against U.S. troops, and that attacks against coalition troops are getting to the point, "where there are eight, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces" Woodward said. And intelligence reports predict that the insurgency will only grow worse over next year. Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails. According to Woodward, the President and Vice President have begun to regularly consult with Henry Kissinger, the war criminal and author of the Cambodian Bombing campaign which contributed so much to the civil war in that country. Kissinger thinks that in Iraq "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy" and that "the problem in Vietnam was that we lost our will." Bring out the nails.

Bring out the nails to hammer into the coffin of the Empire-builder's dream, but keep a silver bullet handy should the monster make a last-ditch attempt to escape from its eternal grave.

Bring out the nails.

*Anwaar Hussain is a former Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter pilot. With a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad, he now resides in United Arab Emirates. He has published a series of articles in Defense Journal, South Asia Tribune and a host of other web portals. Other than international affairs, Anwaar Hussain has written extensively on the religious and political issues that plague Pakistan.

Those who oppose our sole exercise of operational control, then, are supporters of dictatorship, and those who favor it are champions of democracy. Even over this vital question of national security, he divided the nation into "us" and "them." The Administration's first foreign minister, its first defense minister, its first ambassador to the U.S. and its first presidential defense and security adviser, have all expressed concern over the President's obsession with "independence," which is why he hammered through the issue of operational control. Does this mean that the President's entire inaugural diplomatic and security team were worshippers of dictatorship?

"South Korea is taking back operational control because it's the right thing to do," the President said. The growing danger of war is one thing, he said, and operational control is another.

However, under the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, the two allies jointly exercise operational control, and its deterrent effect is among the best in the world. No war must ever break out in our land. That is why until a lasting peace has been declared and assured, we should not take over sole operational control. And yet the President says the risk of war has nothing to do with operational control.

On Korea-U.S. relations, the President says that if the U.S. President and responsible officials say there are no problems, then there are no problems. But this is an unsophisticated perspective. Everyone knows that before the U.S. president and his underlings say that relations are troubled, they must first be beyond repair. Moon Jung-in, the ambassador for international affairs and security who is said to advise the President, said "Our relations with the U.S. are seriously troubled." The New York Times reported a barbed comment from a U.S. official that the gap in perceptions between Korea and the U.S. is as wide as the Far East. It is juvenile to believe everything is fine simply because the U.S. President makes polite noise about how nice things are.

Koreans heard the president say that our sole exercise of operational control means the retrieval of our national sovereignty, and many were enthusiastic. But they have changed their minds after listening to the concerns of former defense ministers, armed forces veterans, intellectuals, former foreign ministers and vice ministers, former police chiefs, Protestant ministers and other prominent figures. President Roh Moo-hyun alone, perhaps because he has shut his ears for good, keeps banging on about independence.

The special tribunals, created on the margins of the legal system and without the approval of Congress, violate the right to a fair trial guaranteed under American law and the Geneva Conventions. It was a judgment applauded by organizations that defend human rights, which at the time, dared to see the beginning of the end of "the abuse of power that has become the trademark of this administration."

Still, as one of the Supreme Court justices pointed out at the time, nothing prevents the President from mending his ways and going to Congress to request the powers he believes needs. That has now occurred. Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives, with the support of a minority of Democrats, just granted him most of what he asked for. "Our democracy is the big loser," scolded a New York Times editorial.

Around the world, September 11 precipitated the adoption anti-terror laws that have shaken the balance between the respect for civil rights and the imperatives of national security. Not a month has gone by without the media exposing abuses in the pursuit of the "war on terror." Considered essential by Mr. Bush, the new American law that sets the legal framework within which the Guantanamo prisoners will be judged doesn't erase the concerns and risks of a slippery slope.

The new legislation upholds the CIA's secret prisons. It legalizes unlimited detentions. It dangerously expands the definition of a terrorist suspect, which would then be considered an "illegal enemy combatant."

The law is shaky with regard to the prohibition of torture. Confessions obtained under the pressure of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment will be prohibited ... even if the previous law passed December 30th 2005 already explicitly forbids it. Even though the new legislation provides a list of abusive interrogation methods considered war crimes by the Geneva Conventions, it leaves to the discretion of the President the "authority to interpret the meaning and application" of the conventions.

All guilty verdicts will be subject to federal court appeal. On the other hand, inmates will be denied the basic right to contest the length of their detentions and the conditions under which they are being held. It's an obvious distortion of the right to habeas corpus. It will however be astonishing, if human rights groups fail to bring this denial of justice before the Supreme Court.

No less distressing is the fact that Republicans in Congress approved this legislation for electoral reasons. Dropping in polls, they hope to reinforce their majority by making Democrats look weak on national security. As soon as the law passed the House of Representatives, its Republican Speaker, Dennis Hastert, qualified opponents of the legislation as, "defenders of the rights of terrorists." One can hardly imagine a more cynical logic.

A substantial minority of Democrats lost their spines and approved the law. But a majority of them, for once, stood fast, and made a clean break with cowering attitude Democrats have displayed since October 2002, at the time of the vote to approve of the Iraq War.

A majority of Democrats in the Senate - including potential candidates for the 2008 presidential election - voted against the law, calculating that Mr. Bush's failure on the Iraqi issue had changed the situation, and undermined the traditional support that Republicans receive on the issue of national security. The November 7th elections will show the degree to which Republican demagogy still functions.