If this is a new kind of war, it seems inordinately indebted to the tropes, if not the troops, of the last great war. In the early days of the Cold War, President Eisenhower’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, branded the neutralism of Indian Prime Minister Nehru immoral. In a similar vein, President Bush declares that those who do not support our war are by that very decision our enemies. Not content to rely on vague rhetorical aggression, the president has identified an “axis” of evil – North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Even for many on the left, the Manichaean Cold War logic seems inescapable.

Dividing the world into good vs. evil may produce a comforting level of moral outrage and strategic clarity for left and right. Nonetheless, it can also contribute to insensitivity to nuances and cruelties that ultimately undermine our security. Metaphors and figures of speech may not themselves break bones, but inappropriate ones, left unanswered, can issue in immense damage.

George Bush’s “axis” ignores both the complex histories of Iran and Iraq and more recent, often U.S.-sponsored, aggressions against each other. One of our major policy responses to the Iranian hostage crisis was to encourage Saddam Hussein in a long war against Iran. Throughout much of the post-shah era, Iran rather than Iraq has been viewed as the United States’ most formidable opponent.

Casual talk about an axis of evil can also undermine modest steps toward peace and justice in a volatile region. Iran is not a pluralistic democracy, but in recent years it has moved toward greater political freedoms at home. It has also sought to open up dialogue with the United States. Similarly, South Korea has initiated negotiations with North Korea, efforts that may be slowed by loose talk of an axis.

Unfortunately, such rhetoric often crosses the political spectrum. George Bush’s confidence that the United States is a beacon of freedom is matched by simplistic left assumptions that “we” got what we deserved. Such rhetoric glides over uncomfortable facts. Many of those who died in the World Trade Center were citizens or descendants of the so-called developing world. Even for those who were U.S. citizens, their role as makers of policy, especially foreign policy, has been virtually nonexistent during most of the Cold War and post-Cold War era.

Perhaps most astounding has been the way in which many have jumped to conclusions about the motives for the attacks. U.S. citizens have access to a few cryptic comments by bin Laden, but unlike most instances of world terror, this event lacked a clear champion claiming credit and articulating a set of nonnegotiable demands.

There are good reasons to alter U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. The one-sided policy is wrong in itself. Even if it is not the fundamental cause of terrorism, it may provide a ground for terror’s recruits. Nonetheless, to attribute terror solely to U.S. failures is the mirror image of the Bush worldview. Just as the United States is not the author of all the world’s progress, neither is it the cause of all evil.

Rhetoric of “axis powers” serves two purposes for Bush. It provides cover for an attack on Iraq. It allows him to tap and expand vague currents of “civilizational” war without opening himself to charges of antipathy to all Muslims. Nonetheless, East vs. West or the Oriental other hardly works any more if it ever did. Iran and Iraq are already complex mixes of secular and absolutist religious and political currents. Their fundamentalists have an agenda that may be exacerbated and subtly shaped by U.S. policy, but its origins long precede the U.S. role in the world. The “West” itself is indebted to the role of the Orient in preserving its great mathematical and philosophical traditions. And modern western secular culture, as George Bush of all people should know, is not without its own fundamentalist political fanatics.

Our security may well demand acts of genuine self-defense and some framework to punish those who would impose their world- view on us. But equally, it requires a willingness to think outside the dichotomies that have guided the world for the last 50 years. For starters, we must take cross-cultural education at least as seriously as we take military spending. It shouldn’t be surprising that Sept. 11 caught U.S. elites off guard. Our intelligence community had virtually no operatives familiar with the cultures and languages of the Middle East.

Former Sen. Paul Simon points out: “Only 1 percent of our students ever study abroad, and two-thirds of them go to Western Europe. In the United States we can go from grade school to getting a Ph.D. without having a year of a foreign language, and that adds to our insularity.” Destructive and self-defeating Manichaean views encourage and are encouraged by such educational neglect.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@prexar.com.