America is a nation at war, says George W. Bush again and again. Indeed, three years after the terror attacks of September 11, the last remaining superpower has proved itself to be a real bruiser. And yet it is more vulnerable than ever before in its history: In Iraq more than a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead, in Afghanistan the struggle continues, and the United States continues to issue terror alarms within its own borders.

There is no way to achieve 100 percent protection against terrorist attacks. Especially given that the terrorists are groups whose bounds know no borders and who are only loosely connected with one another. What holds them together is a dangerous mixture of hatred and rejection of their own corrupt regimes -- and at the same time hatred of the West, which has supported these regimes. And with western politics comes a rejection of their own culture and religion.

Though the presence of this hatred isn't new (the only new part is the intensity of its violence,) Americans keep asking themselves where such intense hate could possibly come from. And they continue to miss the concept that they added to it themselves, in various ways -- via cronyism with third world dictators and through a lack of interest in the developments and problems of the rest of the world, for example. A quick look at the U.S. evening television news makes it clear that international themes are largely ignored. The American public is satisfied to see only itself on screen; its image of the world is firmly established and unshakeable.

New mental map

Even Europe isn't spared. The U.S. view of Europe is thus: When it comes down to it, the British are on the side of Washington, the French against it. On this mental map, Germany lies somewhere in between the two. That some Europeans failed to unquestioningly support the USA in its war on Iraq -- as they did during the Cold War -- disappointed the Bush administration. And it left wounds, which can still be seen today. For instance, in the form of questions over the value of NATO. This, although NATO has joined in the fight against terrorism, and although European critics of the Iraq war cooperate with Washington fully when it comes to questions of terrorism. And don't just see the Iraq war as part of the anti-terrorism campaign. The fact that the United States is could even question the usefulness and mission of NATO is just another sign of how much times have changed.

Three years after September 11, 2001, one thing is sure: "9/11" was an event of historic proportions, a seismic break, a turning point. World politics have changed dramatically. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the world is threatened by another division, one which is partly brought on by the United States. "Whoever isn't for us, is against us:" the formula is as simple as it is risky.

Look to Guantánamo

But how believable is U.S. policy, when on the one side the Americans claim to be fighting for democracy and human rights, but continues to have ties to dictatorships? And how can the United States set an example for the world when it comes up short in pursuing the same goals that it is supposedly fighting for? (Lest we forget Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib.)

In the past three years of the "war on terror," the world has not become a safer place. On the contrary. In Afghanistan the Taliban have once again been heard from in several provinces. Outside Kabul, the warlords are back in power. Top-terrorist Bin Laden is still a free man. His following around the world is growing -- even in Iraq. And there, the situation is anything but stable, despite American hopes and promises. The same can be said for the Near East. Israelis and Palestinians continue to fight, with no end in sight. The Americans know how important it would be for the Islamic world to have a more-or-less fair peace in the Near East. But Washington remains inactive, and nearly always protects Israel. Another situation where American foreign policy has long ceased to be trustworthy.

Of course, Bush's promise to democratize the Islamic world was met by a great deal of mistrust in the first place. Then, the plan was made rubbish by U.S. foreign policy. Even if there had once been a modicum of hope, today only disappointment remains.

In diplomacy, words are deeds, but this rule need not hold true for politics. In politics, words should be words -- and these should be followed by deeds.