I spent an hour after work tonight reading Foreign Policy magazine. If Western governments really want to persuade reluctant allies in the Muslim world that the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam, they need to change their style. Forget the airdrops of anti-Osama leaflets and windup radios tuned to the BBC and Voice of America. Try using Britney Spears, Amnesty International, and a little truth, empathy, and understanding. My emphasis would be on Britney Spears and Amnesty International. This was a good abstract for a mediocre article. [ Link ] For a good recommendation on the direction of American foreign policy, go to Foreign Affairs magazine. Thus, more than in the past, the United States will need to modify not simply the implementation of its foreign policies but, in certain cases, the foreign policies themselves. The purpose is not to increase U.S. popularity abroad for its own sake, but because it is in America's national interest to do so. This requires a deeper understanding of foreign attitudes and more effective communication of U.S. policies. The section that most resonated with me argued that we need to change the style of delivery of our message from a one way "conveyer belt," feeding US policy to foreign reporters and officials. Instead we should promote discussion and allow dissenting opinions to be aired, in order to promote the testing and understanding of US foreign policy. [ Link ] Also in this month's issue of Foreign Policy magazine is an article that attempts to explain nation-building, with many good examples to support its points. The author critiques several myths that the international community holds regarding nation-building, concluding that: For nation building to work, some harsh compromises are necessary-including military coercion and the recognition that democracy is not always a realistic goal. [ Link ]