As the Pentagon prepares to redeploy U.S. forces around the world, it should review its practice of setting up bases in nondemocratic states. Although defense officials claim that having U.S. footholds in repressive countries offers important strategic advantages, the practice rarely helps promote liberalization in host states and sometimes even endangers U.S. security.

A new survey of public opinion on U.S. foreign policy shows that Americans are split in two along party and religious lines. Still, significant majorities are starting to come together based on discontent with the war in Iraq, U.S. standing in the Muslim world, and illegal immigration. Soon the grumbling may become too loud for policymakers to ignore.

U.S. policymakers debate how to wield American power; foreigners debate how to deal with it. Some make their peace with Washington and try to manipulate it; others try to oppose and undercut U.S. interests. The challenge for the United States is how to turn its material dominance into legitimate authority.

The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

In 1945, the United States was the founding impulse behind the cornerstones of the international community: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. At that time, American ideals were perceived to coincide with American actions, intended to expand social, legal, and economic protections around the world. Sixty years later, “Anti-America” has spread into a global phenomenon, crossing borders, classes, ideologies, religions, and generations.

President Obama has embarked on a flurry of Mideast diplomacy amid mounting questions about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and U.S. policy in the region.

The Bush administration has increased resources for public diplomacy with a focus on Muslims. But criticism remains about how the "war of ideas" is waged.

Nation-branding consulting captures the imagination of countries embroiled in public-relations crises. But does it work?

U.S. and Iranian diplomats met for the first time since 1980 to discuss Iraq, but the two sides appear as divided as ever on an array of issues.

The U.S. decision to challenge China in WTO court could represent a fundamental shift in Sino-American diplomacy.

U.S.-funded broadcasters are competing in a wide-open global environment, but some experts wonder about the message generated by these outlets.

The White House says it will meet Iran and Syria at a regional conference on improving Iraqi security.

The United States and its allies may be pondering a shift in strategy that would fold nuclear negotiations with Iran into a wider plan that addresses all of the Middle East’s crises, including the threat of civil wars in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

The U.S.-Turkish relationship, a Cold War strategic fixture, shows signs of fraying. A new CFR report says Washington can help repair ties by improving dialogue on Iraqi Kurds, taking a bigger role in resolving the Cyprus dispute, and boosting Ankara's bid to join the European Union.

A U.S.-EU summit stresses joint resolve in confronting potential nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea, but also evinces continued disagreements over trade and America's conduct in the "war on terror."

President Bush's agenda in Vienna includes Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade. But in a lingering sign of trouble in the decades-old partnership, European leaders, pushed by their electorates, say they'll bring up Guantanamo, Haditha, and U.S. renditions of terrorist suspects too.

The United States continues to face steep challenges in shaping public opinion abroad and improving its image. A new bellwether poll shows public diplomacy efforts are not making much of a dent in sharply negative views about the United States.