History testifies that great leaders, who leave behind 'good image', do not indulge in hyperbolas and clichs, which though pleasing to ears, do not very often, translate into reality. Soft words, and soft power are the determinants of credibility, which promote trust among nations, and a superpower cannot sustain its respectful place in the global order, if it deviates from the magnanimity of adhering to the imperatives of sobriety rather than sabre-rattling disposition, and intimidating nations through savage display of 'arrogance' of power. George Bush, gained power through questionable means in January 2001, had made a solemn promise that he would pursue a 'humble' US foreign policy, "restore US alliances, and abjure costly misguided nation building." In other words, his policy would not radically deviate from the enlightened leadership that USA pursued after World War II, sequel to its assuming the status of a global power. But tragically, Bush blundered into demolishing the 'humble' and what Joseph Nye terms as the 'soft power' of USA. Covertly the Bush Administrations' key foreign policy designers had a 'ready-made agenda', drastically different from the 2000 presidential campaign, in which the advisers had advocated, avoidance of over extending US military forces as it was considered a wasteful effort. The neocon lan however which gravitated around Bush had reduced him to be a mechanical robot in the geopolitical arena. They drummed into his ears that the only way USA could regain its global power preponderance, if it faced the challenges on account of 'rogue states' - Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Unless these states were confronted directly, US would never have peace and its weakness would continue to grow. The remedy, the hawkish elements propounded, was to manage a 'regime change' in these 'rogue states' through military means. Only pro-American governments should be allowed to function. The 9/11 tragedy culminating into a great 'shock' soon transformed into an 'opportunity' to liberate the US, freeing itself from the moral demands and international norms of conduct. It was free to do whatever it wished. It was conceived that if Saddam is eliminated and Ba'ath Party is routed, 'Iraq' would fall into the hands of USA like a ripe plum. The Iraqi Army, so weakened due to continued sanctions would hardly put any resistance. In other words, the target was so soft that it would be a cakewalk. For men like Paul Wolfowitz and others, the time was ripe for the restoration of US leadership over the globe. Alas The distance between the 'idea' and the 'reality' widened, and none of the objectives of 'taming' the rogue states could be achieved. The North Korea defied the US dictates, and Kim Jong IL did not refrain from testing the nuclear bombs and the long-range missiles. Iran emerged as a more non-compliant nation, and its clout considerably increased due to the forming of a government in Iraq much more favourable towards the Iranian establishment. Moreover, the 'hard-liners' gained greater strength due to the meddling into Iran's internal affairs. Left alone, perhaps, the progressive liberals could have won the election. The myth that the "road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad", was falsified, and Hamas gained much greater power in the Palestinian territories in 2006, and the so-called liberal and moderate Fatah's power was undermined. Israel got a severe setback as "Hezbollah backed by Iran, attacked deep into Israeli territory in summer 2006 and fought the Israeli defence forces to a stand still in Lebanon, dramatically strengthening Hezbollah's stature in the Arab and Muslim World while further blackening the eyes of Israel and the US." (Real Leaders do soft power - Learning the lessons of Iraq, by James Steinberg, The Washington Quarterly Spring 2008). It is indeed ironical that instead of building and reinforcing ties with moderate Islamic democratic forces, like for instance Turkey, it created a well-determined radical Islamic force. Naturally Turkey did not oblige USA to use its territory for staging invasion of Iraq. In other words, the pro-democratic forces became anti-America in the Middle East. Even the European allies, did not support USA's misconceived adventure in Iraq, as it went to strengthen quite appreciably the 'resistance' and a miraculous emergence of Islamic Resistance Force, which became a palpable reality. Actually the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan greatly enhanced the operational capability of the freedom lovers, who, through a semantic propaganda are being labelled 'terrorists'. There was already a great reservoir of disgruntled people, who were very critical of USA's policy, who joined them. The global opinion against USA triggered massive demonstrations. No president has ever been titled as 'incompetent' and totally devoid of strategic vision, besides being shoed as President Bush. He squandered trillions of dollars in the war against Iraq and Afghanistan, which has pushed his country towards very tragic recession rather depression of the early thirties, bringing untold miseries to its people. Millions have lost their jobs and their homes. As some one in American reported that one could buy a house at the price one pays for a car. This is the value of the US dollar, which used to be the most robust currency. How long will it take to overcome the economic meltdown, is anybody's guess. But it will never be too soon. With the erosion of economic power, its military might has also been considerably neutralised by the forces of resistance - Al-Qaeda or Taliban. The casualties of US/NATO soldiers are incredibly high, besides the massacre of Iraqi and Afghani civilians, men, women and children very naively termed as 'collateral damages' are of mind boggling proportion. All these killings are nothing but act of 'state terrorism' and USA has undoubtedly emerged as the most disliked state for that reason. The post Cold War era had brought in its wake unchallenged leadership of USA. This period which has rightly been termed as "holiday from history" could have been used to establish the supremacy of US through 'soft power' and winning over the hearts and minds of the marginalised people of the world, encountering the darker side of globalisation. Only if a moderate share of the trillions of dollars wasted could be used for improving the quality of the lives of the wretched of the Earth, the respect for US would have been phenomenally increased and a 'culture of peace' could prevail. This in turn, could erase 'terrorism', now so rampant in different parts of the world. Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not congenital terrorists. There is a limit to the endurance of humiliation and deprivation of freedom. Unfortunately mostly the Muslim population in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir are the worst recipients of exploitation. Acts of revenge takes very heinous shapes, suicide bombing notwithstanding, which is highly condemned in Islam, but humans often act in contravention to their faith. There are radical Jews, radical Christians and the worst are the radical Hindus and proponents of Hindutva. The Wet so lured by the size and economic opportunities that India provides, has led to 'strategic myopic' of the colossal atrocities, what Muslims, Christians and Dalits have to suffer at the hands of the Saffron Brigades of India. Attribution of secularism and its so-called containment ability of the great China are gross strategic errors. This delusion, the USA must dispense with as it is fatal to peace and harmony in South Asia, as China is too formidable to be contained. Besides it has unleashed a message of peace, hope and cooperation with its neighbours and beyond. It is a different paradigm. In the backdrop of the blood-soaked 20th century and senseless wars that Bush imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan in the beginning year of the incoming era, humanity needed a US leader to transcend the perverted paradigm that Athenians prescribed to demoralise their adversary. "The strong do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must." Mr Obama was seen as light at the end of the tunnel, who having an identity of the oppressed segments of humanity will deliver hope and respect to the war-trodden-people and speak in a language, different from power drunk 'white president' with typical cow boyish sensibility. Pakistanis, particularly were expecting that 'Obama' would help Pakistan recover from the revenges of the War On Terror, which was a great strategic bluff of the Bush Administration. In fact it was a blatant lie to hide the latent ambitions to gain substantial control over the Caspian Sea reserves of oil and gas, besides that of Iraq and hidden wealth of copper, uranium and minerals in the mountainous area of Afghanistan. All these dreams went sour and neither the Iraqis nor Afghans proved to be weak and easy morsels. The Islamic Resistance Force humbled USSR, as they had done with respect to the British and now USA must gracefully accept the defeat and also tell the reality of 9/11, which is still shrouded in mystery. The myth of Bin Laden, who perhaps is no more in this world, is created to hoodwink humanity to justify the tyranny let loose on Afghanistan. In fact, the manufactured phobia made US citizens awfully paranoid and panicky, Obama should have made a clean start. But unfortunately the way he addressed Pakistanis, it was a shocking replay of Bush like statements. "Do more or else." The paltry aid will not be a free lunch and that USA would not give a "blank cheque," was shockingly disgraceful. Pakistan, had believed that it was the corner stone of US policy. Far from it. We are victims of US aggression through drones, supplemented with MOSSAD and RAW secret services. To put a couplet by Josh Malihabadi: Uski suney ga kaon shorash-e-kainaat main / Tu ney jisey mitta dia pardah-e-altafat main (Who shall listen to him in the hustle and bustle of life? Whom you destroyed under the cover of love and compassion). Pakistanis must rise to this reality. The writer is a political analyst E-mail: fr786pak@isb.comsats.net.pk