http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704192.html

Not so long ago, the United States made the pursuit and maintenance of moral authority one of the tenants of it's foreign policy. The incident that comes first to this blogger's mind is one that Henry Kissinger has roundly criticized in his 1994 book DIPLOMACY: America's intervention on the side of Egypt during the Suez Crisis of 1956 against its English and French NATO allies.

Mr Kissinger's analysis (which I do not have on hand and, regrettable, cannot therefore quote) is a good starting point. He writes that Egypt sought to make overtures to both NATO and the Soviet Union, playing the two blocs against each other to better place Egypt in the new world order; when Egypt warmed to the Soviets, America and England withdrew their financial commitments to Egypt (the building of the Aswan Dam). To finance the construction of the Dam, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, an old Anglo-French joint colonial venture. As the old colonial powers and the new state of Israel geared up for war, America forced its NATO and Israeli allies to withdraw. America, then under President Eisenhower, realized that it could not condemn the Soviets' brutal suppression of Hungary while simultaneously supporting colonial imperialist gestures in Egypt. To retain its moral authority to inspire revolutions to destabilize the Soviets, America -- putting it bluntly -- betrayed its allies to side with a country that was warming to the Soviets. But what is counter-intuitive from a strictly geo-political standpoint is a wise and prescient in a more nuanced analysis: for America to inspire revolutions behind the Iron Curtain it had to stand apart as an ideal example. Today, for America to undermine religious fanaticism, it must similarly deploy moral authority as part of its arsenal; to do that it must again stand apart and stand morally upright.

Mr Holder's step is a positive one. Mr Obama, like Mr Eisenhower, has felt that retaining (or, in our modern case, retaking) America's moral authority is more important than the loyalty it owes to the CIA. The analogy can yet be carried farther: in much the same way that America sought to destabilize the Warsaw Pact by inspiring popular, democratic, and capitalist revolutions through leading by example, America is now seeking to win 'hearts and minds' in much the same way. If America is to destabilize and deprive radical Islam of its recruits, it must deprive them of something to rail against; transparency and accountability is one step for America to regain its moral authority.

A new best-seller, CHINA & AMERICA'S EMERGING PARTNERSHIP: A REALISTIC NEW PERSPECTIVE argues that for America to regain its position as a world leader, it must lead through moral authority. Deprived of moral authority, the American military is powerless: in stabilizing Iraq, it was the moral support lent to General Petraeus by Muqtada al-Sadr that armed American troops with the support (or, at least, lack of hostility) of the local population. Moving forward, America will need the same support--willingly given--if it is to combat terrorist threats; to do that, America must first regain and then deploy its influence with strong, persuasive moral authority. The book, which is part of a series of eight books written by Mr John Milligan-Whyte which together form a 'New School of America-China Relations', is a persuasive text and I urge you all to read it.

Re-opening the old wounds of 'enhanced interrogations' hurts; but it is a good first step for America to begin to recapture its moral authority. Mr Eisenhower understood the need for moral authority to undermine the Soviet bloc; I trust Mr Obama understands the need for moral authority in the fight to keep America safe from terrorists.