A schoolyard bully is not a well-loved person, but he often has his posse. Some kids want to be on his side because it seems safer than being on the other side. A few may even admire his inflated machismo.
The bully fights to humiliate his opponent. The bully is usually bigger and stronger than most other kids, though often less intelligent and socially inept. In a traditional bully fight, it's one-on-one, the bully continuing to fight until the opponent cries "uncle". The bully is not self-confident, but never displays his own self-doubt, and may not even realize that his poor sense of self-worth is helping drive his behavior.
While modern American schools usually do not tolerate open bullying, it is still a part of our culture, real or fictional. And "cry uncle", fighting a smaller opponent to humiliation, is part of the culture. But to the extent that it works, it only works in one-on-one fights. It doesn't apply when the fight is among groups.
American foreign policy, especially as practiced under Cheney, not as Obama promises to lead us, bears a striking semblance to the schoolyard bully. How else do we describe "shock and awe", a plan to terrorize a nation into submission by a humiliating, but militarily useless, show of superior force? How else do we justify a bomber-happy military that doesn't care about civilian deaths? How else do the dickster and other tyrants justify torture? These misadventures are an expression of the bully mentality. The bully-nation hope that the opponent-nation cries uncle and surrenders to our superior force. We hope that the opponent-nation is humiliated, like the little kid on the schoolyard who lets the bully control the turf.
This is not entirely an American flaw. How else do we explain for that matter the Gaza invasion, or the Israeli right's fantasy that they can humiliate the Palestinians into disappearing? (So many of the settlers are American.) How do we explain some of Russia's adventures in the Caucasus? Powerful nations sometimes like to bully around weaker ones.
But bullying nations doesn't work like bullying individuals. The dynamic is entirely different. When an individual is cowed by a bully, he may retreat, because it is in his own self-interest to not be beaten up again. A little humiliation is better than repeated humiliation and harm. But when a nation is bullied, individuals in that nation are directly harmed. The rest of the nation is rarely intimidated; instead the survivors become even more drawn to the fight. It's exactly the opposite reaction from the one-on-one schoolyard effect. It is militarily and strategically counterproductive.
That is why Cheney's policies so weakened America. He bullied and hurt individuals, and their families and countrymen rallied behind them to become America's enemies. The Taliban in 2000 was a problem in Afghanistan; in 2009, after years of bullying the Pashtun from whom they are recruited, they are a problem in Afghanistan and now threaten nuclear-armed Pakistan. Cheney's remaining supporters still think that nations are just like schoolkids, and America is the biggest, toughest kid of all. It's a tragic misunderstanding.