Yes and no. It is the perception of the United States that has suffered as a result of what, especially but not only, Rumsfeld has said.
As far as the disagreements are concerned, they are based on different ways of perceiving a certain situations. However, had the adminstration not made it politically impossible for Democratically elected officials in Europe to do anything but listen to their outraged constituency, those disagreements could have been smoothed over behind closed doors.
If you think that the current adminstration has handled Europe properly, then I would hate to see what a failure would look like.
It's nice to see you're not going to take a position so nebulous as to be non-disprovable ;)
Thus far, the only datum you've used to substantiate your "ugly American" hypothesis is European antipathy. This of course, begs the question as there can be any number of rival conjectures to explain that antipathy...not the least of which, and by far the American favorite, good old petulance, would prove sufficient.
Your analysis, beyond dispute, exhibits a high degree of sophistication; bear in mind, the same could be said of the Carter administration as opposed to the Reagan administration.
As far as the disagreements are concerned, they are based on different ways of perceiving a certain situations.
Not entirely. One must first eliminate the possibility of a hidden agenda before making such a blanket statement. In the present case, there is ample reason to suspect such an agenda.
However, had the adminstration not made it politically impossible for Democratically elected officials in Europe to do anything but listen to their outraged constituency, those disagreements could have been smoothed over behind closed doors.
That's a rather naive position considering how that "enraged constituency" arrived at its conclusions. I don't need to remind you of the french best-seller that posited we inflicted 9/11 on ourselves, do I?
If you think that the current adminstration has handled Europe properly, then I would hate to see what a failure would look like.
Diplomacy is a means to an end. That end is an agreement satisfactory to all involved. If the only end acceptable to one side is "what I want," then diplomacy has failed. Not as a practice mind you, but as a tool.
I submit this is the present case.
Often times, men lacking goodwill retreat to the comforting ambiguity of "is the glass half-full, or half-empty" to justify their refusal to concede to a stronger moral position. This is what old Europe has done.