Does world opinion matter? This question has been at the center of debate surrounding negative world opinion polls concerning American foreign policy. Many have pointed to these polls as a central failure of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, which they say has alienated our allies and further emboldened our enemies. Instead, these critics advocate policies designed to regain the respect of the world in order to bring allies, and eventually enemies, to America’s side.

This goal is referred to by political scientists as “soft power,” the ability to resolve political conflicts through diplomatic means — “hard power,” by contrast, refers to military force. The lives, money and time saved by being able to resolve conflicts without the use of force make such a strategy a worthy goal. The question is: How can the United States acquire more soft power?

Most often, answers to this question contain some reference to words like “sensitivity” or “tact.” The problem, in the eyes of those who use these terms, is that the United States has become “arrogant” or “hegemonic,” fueling hatred through its “meddling” in the affairs of foreign nations. Their solution is a foreign policy that emphasizes the importance of multilateralism and the consensus of the global community.

Unfortunately, this solution overlooks two crucial facts — the true source of “soft power” and the nature of the conflicts it’s intended to resolve.

Teddy Roosevelt made the best metaphor for soft power with his famous saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” A more accurate phrasing — “carry a big stick and speak softly” — emphasizes the mistake made by the advocates of “sensitivity” and “tact”: Diplomacy is meaningless without the means to enforce it. In other words, true soft power is derived from hard power; you cannot have the first without the second.

Consider two historical conflicts: First, Hitler’s invasion of surrounding territories before World War II and second, the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after Japan’s attack of Pearl Harbor. In the first, Europeans refused to meet Hitler’s buildup with force, hoping that conceding those territories as carrots would satisfy his appetite. In the second, America used immediate force against Japan on its home soil.

The radically different results of the two strategies show the futility of soft power not backed by military force. The first strategy led to years of warfare and millions of deaths. The second led to the complete and immediate Japanese surrender.

The ineffectiveness of diplomacy without the real threat of military action is showcased by the case of North Korea, which now claims to have nuclear weapons after years of empty warnings by the United States and its allies and subsequent, equally empty assurances by North Korean leaders. We are now witnessing a repeat in Iran, where European negotiators patiently offer political and economic incentives and are met with increasing Iranian confidence.

If there is a failure of U.S. foreign policy, it is of being too timid, not of being too aggressive. The trouble in securing Iraq is largely a result of the Bush administration giving in to international and domestic pressure to wage a “sensitive war.” Military commanders have found themselves forced to defer to legal advice when planning attacks and to refrain from attacking religious sites sheltering terrorists — all in the name of respecting world opinion in hopes of gaining soft power.

An important aspect of soft power is consistency. Much of the resentment of the Bush administration’s foreign policy is a result of the uncertain and unnecessary rationalizations it used in the months before the Iraqi invasion. Without consistent principles, trust is difficult to gain. What the world sees in American foreign policy today is an unprincipled series of decisions that make the United States hard to predict and therefore more difficult to trust.

The solution is a recommitment to a set of principles — public and explicit — to guide U.S. foreign policy. Central among these is the commitment to the physical security of the United States. Only when this has been established can soft power, and the respect of the world, be achieved.