The problem is, that what is arrogant to some, is strength and leadership to others.
Just depends on what end you're at.
Seems somewhat subjective yeah?
If Earl were to tell you what he finds arrogant about American foreign policy you might see it as merely looking out for American interest.
Now, technically you're both right.
I think it's still a tad early on to see how arrogant, or un-arrogant, the Americans are being in the middle east.
The middle east is largely a result of bad leadership from all of the middle eastern countries, Muslim, Jewish etc. Colonialism (Old timey colonialism, the brits, the french etc.) and the Americans are somewhat new to the fray.
..Now..if we're looking for some kind of established arrogance (substitute your definition here) Look to Latin America..But that is a whole other topic.
I personally believe that Bush isn't too different from any other president, slight foreign policy differences, different speech deficiencies,, but for the most part he's like every democrat or republican that's been in office. So if he's arrogant, stupid etc...then the rest were?
My jury is still out on Bush, history will probably be the judge of all of this. I'm certain we'll have blown ourselves up by then anyhow.
But that really is an entirely different subject, a much larger one. Just thought I'd point out how subjective the term Arrogant can be.