There's nothing straightforward about foreign policy, with a country's actions all too frequently coming back to haunt it, writes EUGENE BINGHAM.
In the scheme of things, George W. Bush's use of the word "crusade" to describe his blitz on terrorism may have seemed trivial. But in the sensitive world of foreign policy, particularly America's complex relationships with Muslim countries, it had the potential to backfire on the President. So his advisers rushed to use another bothersome word: sorry.
"I think to the degree that that word [crusade] has any connotations that would upset any of our partners or anybody else in the world, the President would regret if anything like that was conveyed," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Bush had not meant for anyone to take the word in its historical context, said Fleischer, attempting to convince Arab states that when Bush said he wanted to wage "this crusade, this war on terrorism" he was not harking back to the 11th-century slaughter of Muslims by the Christian crusaders.
It's a fragile business, foreign policy, a line of work in which mere words can derail the best of intentions. Subtle changes and selfish requirements can turn deepest enemies into friends, and allies into foes. Never have these shifts been more graphically illustrated than in the events of the past few weeks.
Consider these points: the US has declared a war on terrorism aimed at Osama bin Laden, a man who was once a beneficiary of American Central Intelligence Agency funding. Bin Laden has sought refuge in Afghanistan with the Taleban, a regime allegedly created by a joint effort between the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Among those nations lining up to offer their cautious support to the US are Iran and Libya, its arch enemies of recent times.
The net of history does not have to be cast much further to find other examples in which America has danced with partners that history regards as distasteful.
The US supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein throughout the Iran-Iraq war, only for him to become Washington's public enemy number one when he flexed his military muscle once too often by invading Kuwait.
When American commentators began to question why Hussein was suddenly being portrayed as a beast when he had previously received US support, Republican Senator William Cohen as much as admitted his country's culpability.
"We have a situation where we've had a wolf knocking at our door and we persuaded ourselves that he's really a vegetarian. I think this [invasion] indeed indicates that he likes red meat ... We have helped build this particular monster as such that is now swallowing up countries like Kuwait," Cohen said in 1990.
Back in the 1970s, Chile's democratically elected Marxist government was toppled by General Augusto Pinochet's CIA-funded and trained military forces. The dictator's squads went on to torture, imprison and kill many thousands.
Within Asia, President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, launched a bombing campaign in Cambodia that killed thousands of peasants and created the conditions in which the Khmer Rouge flourished.
From the safe distance of 2001, it is easy to criticise. But in the wake of the catastrophic four-plane terrorist raid on the United States last week, commentators have questioned the part American foreign policy of the past has played in the build-up to attack.
Martin Shaw, a professor of international relations and politics at Sussex University, drew attention to America's role in the Middle East.
"It may be a little too simple to say that America is paying the price for Ariel Sharon, and for Bush's willingness to see the last vestiges of the peace process disappear in the blood of both Palestinians and Israelis," he told the Guardian newspaper.
"But the longer failure of American policy in the Middle East cannot be taken out of the equation, and almost everyone except the Israeli and American political classes knows that is the case."
Elsewhere in the paper, left-wing commentator Seumas Milne launched his own attack. "It is [a] record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swathes of the world's population ... If it turns out that the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming."
Conservative commentators have vented similar views, too. A correspondent for Jane's defence website linked the origins of last week's attack back to the 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter set up a team to undermine communist influence in the world following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
"Thus began the US love affair with Islamists in which short-term profit motivated all parties concerned, but the deadly ramifications of which are haunting the world today and the effects of which were brought home starkly to America [last week]," said Jane's.
With the help of other Western allies, the US spent $US3 billion ($7.3 billion) recruiting, training and equipping Islamic rebels to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden was one of those mujahedin and he assumed mythical status for his feats. The wealthy son of a construction tycoon had travelled from his homeland in Saudi Arabia to fight as part of the CIA-backed force.
Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, bin Laden returned home, but soon fell out with the Saudi leadership over its insistence on allowing US military forces within its borders in the build-up to the Gulf War. Bin Laden vowed he was against the Saudis and the Americans. After a spell in Sudan, he took his wealth and influence among Islamic fundamentalists to Afghanistan, where he found shelter.
Afghanistan's leaders, the Taleban, came to power in 1996 soon after bin Laden arrived. The movement, a fundamentalist faction drawn from young men who had come for the anti-Soviet jihad, has been called a monster created by the CIA.
"The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," Selig Harrison, from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, told a conference in London this year.
"[The CIA] told me these people were fanatical and the more fierce they were, the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets. I warned them that we were creating a monster," said Harrison, a US expert on South Asian affairs who has had extensive contact with the agency while writing five books.
Now the US is gathering a global coalition to respond to the acts of terrorism it blames on bin Laden and, by association, the Taleban.
Most curious among the list of potential member nations is Iran, on which America has kept its sights since US diplomats were seized in Tehran in 1979. The two countries have stared each other down for more than 20 years but their desire to harm a common enemy may yet thaw the relationship.
As intricate as foreign policy gets, President Bush has been in office long enough to realise that needs sometimes dictate that the oldest of diplomatic principles apply: my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Map: Opposing forces in the war against terror
For coverage of the attacks on the United States, see:
Florida detention centre was built into the Everglades in just eight days.