Head of the British Army General Sir Richard Bannatt, chief of the General Staff, has told the truth for UK Iraq withdrawal. He acknowledged that British forces should pull out from Iraq as early as possible since the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems". Meanwhile, US military authority disclosed that it would keep a force of 140,000 soldiers till the year 2010. A raging tide of anti-Americanism and clashes between religious sects in Iraq give rise to two kinds of reactions, one is an attempt for troop withdrawal and, the other is an endeavor to sustain with forcible means.

The war on terror launched by the United States has been going on for five full years since 9/11 attacks occurred in the U.S. 2001, and Iraq is its "core battleground." President George W. Bush said recently that the United States is engaged in a decisive, ideological battle in the 21st century, which is directed against "Islamic fascism". On a global scale, however, the genuine decisive battle seems to wage between American hegemonism and anti-Americanism, and the Iraq war has made anti-Americanism hidden and strewn everywhere rage and spread far and wide, so that not only Americans are not feeling secure but people in many places around the world have been disturbed.

To cope with the escalation of the war on terror and rise of anti-Americanism, the logic peddled by the U.S. is that anti-Americanism has long been around and it is a "prevailing disease" internationally, which is jealous of its national strength and hates the American outlook of value. Nevertheless, most countries in the world deem that anti-Americanism is directed not against the values of democracy and freedom universally, but against the erroneous foreign policies and hegemonic acts of the U.S.. In recent years, the United States has deliberately capitalized on the 9/11 incident to seek its global strategic interests in disregard of international norms and the ensuing inhumane disasters and sufferings to be inflicted upon people and, so anti-Americanism is going unchecked and surging ahead globally.

The Bush administration has been arrogant, aggressive and overweening with its stance on anti-terrorism war. But a noted American scholar acknowledges that the goal pursued by the Bush administration is identical with most traditional themes in the US history, and the disparities between Bush and his predecessors can find more expressions in their different styles of work. In a word, the consistent objective of the US government is to maintain hegemony. In the post-cold war era, the think tank of the new conservative forces has tried hard to convince him of seizing the opportunity and expanding combat successes so as to enable the 21st century to be another American century.

Unfortunately, people have failed to see the all-powerfulness of the United States but its incompetence from the disturbances and turmoil in Iraq. Prestigious American strategist Zbigniew Brzenzinski once reminded people that one's superiority cannot be confused with his omnipotence. And some people of insight in the U.S. also worry that the current foreign policies of the US government have weakened the nation instead of making it more powerful due to the misuse of its advantageous position in the world.

In view of surging anti-Americanism globally in a balanced way, it smacks of the non-government nature, and some radical anti-American countries still cannot pose a fundamental challenge for the U.S. Hence, it can be said that it is none other than the U.S. itself that can bring about its own defeat. The U.S. pursues principles relating to hegemony in its international contacts with a vehement hatred for leaders of some nations elected by their people, who are nevertheless unacceptable to its government, while keeping on trumpeting the supremacy of democracy and freedom; the U.S. goes its own way at the expediency of international rules and regulations, while alleging the maintenance of international order. The United States often demands other countries assume their role as responsible actors in the international arena, but in fact it is precisely the U.S. that should take up responsibilities by restraining itself for the sake of sustained, lasting peace and common development of the contemporary world.

By People's Daily Online