Whether the events of Sept. 11 are viewed solely as an assault on America or as an offensive against western civilization, no nation is exempt from the impact. The battle against terrorism influences all regions of the globe and reconfigures their politics. The old political realism demanded that America place its own interests at the center of foreign policy. The new realism mandates that its allies be offered a “stark choice” – either you are with us or you are against us. By designating the struggle against terrorism the centerpiece of foreign policy, the Bush administration has altered fundamental principles of the United States’ commitment beyond its borders.Heads of state throughout Europe were among the first to contact President Bush after the Sept. 11 assault to guarantee their solidarity. In a paradoxical shift in NATO’s history, NATO’s European member countries had recourse to the organization’s mutual defense clause to commit themselves to the security of the nation that had shielded them for more than fifty years.But once the United States carried its war on terrorism to Afghanistan, it rejected offers of aid from its European allies, preferring rather to have Europeans directing an international peacekeeping force in Kabul. If this strategy did not incite overt European indignation, a number of other recent problems have. Among these are the President’s “axis of evil” speech, portents of plans for an assault on Iraq, the escalating violence in the Middle East and objections regarding Washington’s policy in the region. The United States’ European allies would censure a repetition of the Persian Gulf War. The distance between European heads of state and Washington is increasing. There is a consensus on the reality of the current threat of global terrorism. Yet the Bush administrations’s unilateralism appears to Europeans like a recurrence of isolationism.Wars reconfigure diplomacy. Conquest becomes the primary objective of foreign policy, and diplomatic alliances are adapted in order to accomplish it. This process can produce odd political partners. Resonating out from Afghanistan through Central Asia and the Middle East to Asia and Europe, unforeseen political alignments are falling into place. At the beginning of the conflict, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, whose administration aided the support of the Taliban, allied with the United States against the Taliban. Along with this shift in Pakistan’s association with the United States is the hope for arbitration with India over Kashmir. In other regions, the focus on terrorism is altering the conditions of current hostilities from Macedonia to Northern Ireland. As an ally of Pakistan, it might have been predicted that China would support an autonomous position by the Pakistani regime. Yet it did not do so.To declare war on terrorism, even if it is restricted to terrorist cells and military not immediately backed by nation-states, is a formidable project. How is America able to combat terrorism without damaging its standing in a world in which the assistance of other nations is vital? Russia wants to make use of the current international climate to strengthen its position with NATO and the European Union. It might have been anticipated that that Vladimir Putin would require Western endorsement of Russian hostilities against territories in Chechnya, and a slackening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s strategy to enlarge in order to incorporate the Baltic states, as payment for his backing the war against international terrorism. But rather than do this, Putin has employed that backing as part of an effort toward Russia’s acceptance as an authentic part of the West and of Europe. NATO’s secretary-general has in fact proposed to give Russia equal status with the alliance’s permanent members in originating and executing some policies.America convened a diverse coalition of Pakistanis, Saudis, Russians, Syrians, Uzbeks, and Tajiks – the majority of whom formerly were the target of U.S. denunciation for their subjugation of civilians or their protection of terrorist cells. As the struggle against terrorism continues, how will the United States judge the unsavory tendencies of its allies? Should America devote itself to nation building in Afghanistan alongside the Tajiks and Uzbeks of the Northern Alliance? Should the United States attempt to stabilize Pakistan and, in due time, Iraq and Syria?There is need for concern that, according to the cold-war formula that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” the United States will fumble genuine opportunities for significant change in international politics, doling out weapons to nefarious states, muting criticism of Russia’s maneuvers in Chechnya, or disregarding China’s human rights record. And there is need to be skeptical about the type of nation building we could assume in areas of the world in which our knowledge is limited.Modern civilized societies will be engaged in a struggle against global terrorism for an indefinite future. Victory will demand more comprehensive and extensive collaboration among intelligence, customs, police, financial institutions and other organizations than previously considered practicable. Ultimately, this should be the season of resolute diplomacy, not to be confused with appeasement.

Kenneth Keulman is the chairman of the religious studies department.