A couple of comments about that.

1) Historically, some countries have seemed to align against us regardless of our actions.

2) When you are talking about autocracies this may not hold as true. For instance, our actions and the way our actions are presented on state run media may be two different things. Also, autocratic governments and their people may be of two minds.

If it is seen as both competent and committed to morally defensible aims and broadly benevolent purposes, it is likely to be viewed as a positive force by most people...

I highly doubt this. It appears to be a decidedly unrealistic bit of wishful thinking.

So Mike Mullen is saying that we can't fool them dumb muslims by our propaganda and we actually have to mend our foreign policy ways? wow.

ok, let's get on with fixing our middle east foreign policy -- perhaps zeroing out our huge annual aid to the apartheid Israeli regime and the autocratic Egyptian regime will be a good start.

Maybe those dumb muslims have noticed we actively fund apartheid state-sponsors of terrorism (Israel) and tyrants (Hose-me Mubarak) and interfere in their internal affairs, and thus have grounds for not liking us.

Or maybe they just hate our freedoms...whatever that means.

Question is why this brilliant new gem of an insight is coming from the DoD and not State?

Oh, maybe, it is because DoD has a budget that is like 20 times bigger so they actually have people who have time to think big thoughts and design improvements to our foreign policy philosophy.

Why is Adm. Mullen not fighting, and leaving the thinking to State Dept.?

Sounds right to me. Like most great powers, and especially dominant ones, the United States tends to believe that its motives are pure, that its noble aims are apparent to all, and that other peoples ought to be grateful for its self-less assistance.

You may have just answered your own question. While I'm sure there is a purposeful reason for doing propaganda of this sort, the real reason may be to convince ourselves that we're good, and only trying to explain our situation.

At the same time, though, there really is a need for better knowledge of the US's capabilities and limitations. Drezner pointed out in one of his posts a while back that a lot of international students (and particularly third-world students) have this view of the US as some type of Grand Chessmaster that is constantly manipulating the world for its own purposes. We do our share of manipulation, but mostly we're just muddling along with limited information, bad preconceptions, and a lot of resources.

ok, let's get on with fixing our middle east foreign policy -- perhaps zeroing out our huge annual aid to the apartheid Israeli regime and the autocratic Egyptian regime will be a good start.

The irony of that is that the aid was a reward of sorts to both Israel and Egypt for actually agreeing on the peace treaty. I know that will never satisfy the rejectionist, "Fight to the last Palestinian" crowd, but it actually allowed Egypt a considerable breather and got them back the Sinai.

To be a soldier or sailor, to defend one's country, is an honorable profession. When politicians change the purpose from defending one's country to projecting military force around the world in order to make the world more in harmony and supportive of our corporationss' way of life, the task of killing those who rise against us must be far less palatable. This is especially true when so doing kills civilians who are non-combatants. Since the end of WWII, each of our wars has inflicted a higher percentage of casualties on such non-combatants. It was up to 90% in Iraq! By now being a soldier or a sailor, like Adm. Mullen, and a thoughtful one at that, must be extremely distasteful. At least, it would be to me.

When our presidents consider using military force, I think they do so out of ignorance and false expectations. In recent years, since Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, our presidents have not themselves been in combat nor even in the armed forces. With the advancement of technology, the latter bunch are, I believe, overly impressed with what can be done. Predator drones, as an Obama-example, are indeed impressive, as were long-range missiles to Clinton. Most of their kill, in both cases, has been civilians, non-combattants.

We have a privileged position as a nation? We had an even more privileged position when we started out as a nation, under a military man, President and General George Washington. He advised us not to meddle in the affairs of other nations; rather to be open to friendship and trade with all. How privileged we were then as a nation to have had such a leader!

i thing if we action, then people would like to see the results. and this is not much have by leader now.

Thank you for your interesting article.

You might be interested in my piece, "The Graveyard of Empire and Strategic Communications," which deals with the subject at hand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brown/strategic-communications_b_271977.html

While Adm mullen makes a pretty good (but obvious) point that our words have to match up to our deeds or they are useless, he overlooks another side to the strategic communication effort.

There at least two major strategies on how to conduct an effective strategic communication or public diplomacy campaign: build yourself up or bring your enemy down. Mullen correctly points out that any US effort to bolster its own appeal with the Muslim world is bound to fail because our policies are seen as a threat to Islam.

What the US has thus far not done enough of, however, is de-legitimizing the enemy by focousing on their inner contradictions, mistakes, etc. A major factor in Al-Qaida's downfall in Iraq was their strategic mistake in brutally killing Muslim civilians. Zawahiri even had to send a letter to Zarqawi essentially telling him to wake up, as his tactics were drastically hurting al-Qaida's image.

Mullen makes it seem like strategic communication efforts are useless altogether, which is not necessarily the case.

Increased efforts to undercut the enemy's ideology, tactics, and appeal do not require Muslims to like the US or accept its policies. They can continue to hate the US, as long as they hate groups like al-Qaida too.

Of course, this does not absolve the US or eliminate the need to take a serious look at our policies toward the Muslim World. Re-assessing our policies in the region is imperative. Yet I am less hopeful that these policies will change anytime soon and much more hopeful that our enemies will continue to make foolish mistakes we can capitalize on.