BY TOM PLATE

Is it anti-American to disagree with U.S. policy? Were this the case, wouldn’t half of Congress, the beneficiary of a system that constitutionally protects dissent and criticism, now have to be counted as such? When much of the world has sincere doubts about the wisdom of an offensive against Iraq, should it be thought anti-American?

To be sure, Iraq is a tricky issue, especially for neighboring countries. They may not like Saddam Hussein (who does?), but they doubt that there is any present danger (at least in the absence of a destabilizing Western offensive). In fact, we all know that many countries, not just Iraq, have stockpiled biological or chemical weapons — including, of course, the United States and Israel.

What’s especially widespread in Asia, though, is not just doubt, but fear that a Western attack on Iraq would erect a historic wall of mistrust between the West and the Muslim world, and in the end create psychological conditions conducive to the growth of terrorism. It would be a cure far worse than the disease of Saddam if the end result were a renewed and seemingly permanent geopolitical plague of terrorism, especially against the United States and Israel. But some of America’s closest friends, not wishing to appear disloyal to an oft-brittle “you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us” Bush administration, fear to make these points publicly.

Not, however, outspoken Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. The problem of Saddam, he says, will prove less daunting than the problem created in the effort to vaporize him. An anti-Muslim crusade may be the furthest thing from Washington’s mind, but the “perception is that Muslim countries seem to be the target everywhere,” as Mahathir puts it. The growing perception is one civilization gunning for another, rich against poor, light against dark. Hard facts are not always as memorable or enduring as gut images.

The truth is, many people elsewhere are turned off by the arguable arrogance of Washington’s gut instinct toward geopolitical moralism, as if only America knows the right thing to do. A United Arab Emirates columnist, writing in the influential Khaleej Times newspaper, put it succinctly: “Not only is the United States the greatest and most powerful nation on planet Earth, but it is now also the one country that has appropriated the right to live by its own set of rules, quite apart from the rest of the world. ... American hubris is so dangerous because of the unparalleled power it enjoys.”

That power is not viewed as inherently evil as long as it is applied sincerely multinationally — that is to say, in the interest of all (or at least many) nations rather than one. So here’s the paradox: The Bush administration may sincerely believe its topple-Saddam policy is in the world’s interest — and indeed it may be right. But the widespread perception elsewhere is that what drives U.S. policy is not a broad global perspective, but America’s narrow national interests and this administration’s exceptionally close relationship with Israel.

Because the U.S. effort to imbue the anti-Saddam offensive with a paternal multinational patina seems insincere, the core policy seems inherently unilateral and self-centered.

Plate is professor of policy and communication studies. He is also a columnist with the Los Angeles Times Syndicate International and Knight-Ridder.