http://www.newamerica.net/publications/art...e_hegemony_6604

Very interesting article on our current global hegemony, and perhaps our decline in the process.


This really grabbed me:

While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe's, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn't educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want -- like the International Monetary Fund -- while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings -- consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas -- let alone when it's not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region's answer to America's Apec.


Another quote


In Europe's capital, Brussels, technocrats, strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, a German member of the European Parliament, calls it "European patriotism." The Europeans play both sides, and if they do it well, they profit handsomely. It's a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, the self-described "friend of America," and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army; the only problem is that it doesn't really need one. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well, binding it closer to the E.U. even if it never becomes a member. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya, Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year, with others waiting in line and begging to join?

So my questions are :


Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other?

Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen thier dependence on the US?

Bonus question:

Do you believe GW has done irreperable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?

Part of what is changing globally is the resurgence of China and India as economic superpowers. Historically they always were, our industrial revolution broke traditions and catapulted us to the top. The complete meltdown of Europe in the last century due to the damage of 2 world wars took them out of the equation and due to the rise of the Soviets and the shift of power between the U.S and the Soviets kept them out of contention. The EU takes care of the problem of Europe which seemed content to play never ending Empire building competitions. Maybe they couldn't force a constitution onto several countries with strong national identities and even stronger pride, but their unity will still grow and they are no longer in need of any aid from the U.S.
I agree the Russians are on their way out of the picture and will probably end up under china.

I am not sure of the future role of China. Communism is gone regardless of the current titles. It seems to be on a controlled descent. China however has always been a beauracratic culture. It was always the path one followed in life there. It is part of the culture. Communism may have warped its methods--which were more like a corporation in its basic breakdown. You studied and you practised and if you scored well you could rise to a certain point.. If you showed real promise you were brought up and given better opportunities and treated above the rest. But one's place in society was almost a given and you were expected to remain there.
China however is leaning towards more economic freedom but has some very serious problems ahead. Not enough resources for its massive population. A population that is large enough that its economy may strain to meet the needs of so many. The freedoms that are leaking back out to individuals will not be easily retaken and would probably destroy their rising power.
Their labor is cheap -- now. Costs however are already rising quickly and the economics of it all may make it less attractive in the near future. Their lack of regulation on how business operates may offset that though.
The Middle East is opening zones of almost completely unregulated business with low costs in relation to taxes and it is quickly becoming VERY attractive. Check out Dubai alone. Now the Saudis are getting ready to really open their wallets for the same thing and China may soon have very stiff competiton. Add the incredible wealth of the ME and it really opens the race. (Personally I think this may have more of an effect of terrorism. The AQ types become a threat to the even larger sums of money these zones have the potential for and I see a knife in the back coming to them).
The EU and China are both making hefty investments in Africa and sooner or later the insanity of Africa will decline and they will become a very pivotal piece of the puzzle. Really though it will be 50 years minimum for the change to be dramatic.

I'd love to live for a 1000 years just to watch what happens.

I think the military in Turkey will maintain its hold and the ties with the EU will only strengthen. This opens the door to the EU to stronger and stronger ties to the Middle East and its resources. Turkey is already becoming very European.
Radical Islam is dying. The current WOT is just its death throes as it loses its relevance in the world. Fundementalism cannot survive for long periods of time. terrorists will always be with us and often from unlikely sources. but radical Islam will end up just like the radical fundementalist Christians. A historical footnote that ends up as a useful voting bloc come election time. If you removed abortion as an issue even that would go. even gay marriage would likely fizzle out as each new generations loses the angst about gays. The days of fire and brimstone has been overrun by feel goods like joel osteen.

Europe will be interesting to watch just for the culture changes coming their way. In just 100 years it will be a very colorful place as the mixing from immigrants continues. The cultural hold outs will become the grumpy old man yelling at kids to stay of their lawns.
As in Africa both the EU and China are making strong inroads in the Middle East. Russia is along for the ride as well. They have quietly made deals with Iran for nuclear plant contruction. They will still be behind and under the Chinese though.


As for us, Bush may just be given credit if Iraq stays peaceful. Doubtful though as the struggle between the Iranian and Saudi styles of Islam is not over. Once Bush is gone so will the Bush agenda. McCain may win and hold on for awhile but i think Americans are just tired of it all. not just the WOT but the whole political mess we have and our growing insecurity about our place in the global world and here at home. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed as saying after his attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
I think Americans have this fear in regards to Globalization and Free Trade. It is one thing to talk about how free markets are the best thing for freedom and quite another to live that way. What is good for Wall Street is not often good for Main Street. Even over the long term the damage done short term to our social structure can be devastating. I think as it continues you will see left and right come together on this. i think Huckabee is actually a good archtype for the coming politician. think Conservative Democrats.
The fact that many spots in the world can flat out smoke us is a growing fear among Americans. the "Good Jobs" are gone.
There are no careers that one can live a lifetime in and retire from. Social safety nets are in serious danger and the free market fixes lack the confidence as examples like Enron and Citigroups show corporations will sacrifice us all for easy profit and try to lay the bill for it on our shoulders. I am a Free Market evangelist but I fear the gross excesses will drive this country fright back to the socialism we have finally gotten away from. If the markets will not step up and firmly regulate themselves the demand for government to do so will become deafening.

Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other? No. Europe needs to play us against each other to survive and indeed grow successfully. They can profit off of their position strategically and globally. I would predict that Europe will once again rise to emminence culturally. Everything "cool" will come from there. The media creations alone will probably redefine art and culture once again. Their ties to the global world and their location give them an edge. They will probably be the grease that makes the global world go.




No Yes No.
Here is what the world has learned from the Cold War and GW as the American President. Don't get caught under the influence. This quote sums it up best.


As mentioned in the article there are three visions now available for the world to adhere to. America, the EU and the Chinese. I think ours is the toughest to maintain because we are isolated from the world geographically. We can be isolationist if we choose and the rest of the world will not "need" in the near future. We need to stay dynamic to survive at the top of the heap. If we close in on ourselves and lose our creative ability we are in trouble. We need to find ways to meet our needs for dang near anything socially that allows us to be fluid and ready to react quickly to changes. Social free market constructs to meet our health care and retirement needs. I think we need to rethink our manufacturing base here in the states and find ways to get those jobs back and be competitive globally--alright I am a science geek and have mucho faith in automated facilities.
I think we can look at the unified effort possible globally and still be able to say that we can not just do it better but do it.
We need to invest everywhere and get out people out in the world to lead by example instead of just militarily.
I am also a preacher of energy independence. Not just for economic and military security but because of the incredible profit potential as well as power.

Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

Some of these questions seem pretty similar in nature, so I’ll limit my response to the first.
It already has. We have come along way from being a beacon of liberty to struggling groups and nations around the world. The rest of the world need only look at our bungling foreign policy since WWII, and realize that what they have to sacrifice in return for US assistance and alliance may not be worth the cost.

At times I get rather confused as to why other groups and nations ever looked to us as a benevolent superpower. Looking at the reluctance to abolish slavery compared to other nations, and the absolutely abhorrent genocide committed against the American Indians, I think it’s probably by pure luck that we emerged as a superpower and had others look to us as a model and an ally. Add to that, we are not even what we claim to be. We are not a land of the free. We are a land of a certain degree of freedoms; but so many other freedoms have been surrendered or sacrificed in the name of domestic tyranny, whether from religion or politics.
After the Cold War ended and the after-party was over, nations around the world finally started to see that there was another way, as opposed to picking between the US and the USSR. The end of the Cold War ended our global dominance; there is no more godless enemy from which to protect the hapless citizens.

Once that wall crumbled (figuratively and literally), people and governments either started seeing our foreign policy for what it was, or realized that with new avenues for trade in the digital/internet age, their dependence on the US could be lessened or scrapped altogether. Nations realized that instead of picking which superpower to huddle to for defense, they are now a marketable entity. They can choose to offer their resources and alliance to the highest bidder, whether it is the Arab States, China, India, the US or the EU.

The US retains global dominance in name only, and by that I mean commercial name recognition. We have hegemony with McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Microsoft, but with our struggling economy, our debt and our outdated foreign policy, even that will fade in time.

Great topic.

1.) I believe so. It's a common economic principle that when money is being funneled out of somewhere with limited to no return on an investment and no potential for a speedy return that the economic engine will be slowed. The expression "follow the money" exists for a very good reason, and with less or no money at all [which, for America seems very unlikely, but still], power goes the way of the dinosaur.

While we have the capital to do so, it never hurts to have the cash on-hand to worry about domestic issues, ones that impact the American instead of the Iraqi. So, we're seeing morale decline and money... Well, a nine trillion dollar deficit is no small feat.

2.) They're winning it now. Europe has modeled itself effectively as the New Roman Empire, a great social entity with economic arms reaching across several continents. America just can't keep up with something so prepared to lead. The downfall of the Soviet Union was cultural differences without assimilation. The E.U. has massive educational and social programs in place to rally people under one banner, hence the success, hence our failure. Europe has always been the historical Melting Pot of the world.

3.) Several countries have begun an economic shift in favor of the Euro. This may be a bad trend since there is only so much currency keeping the value of the Euro stable. Think colonial American and the value of the Continental. Europe won't make the same mistake of printing one hundred percent more currency than should have been circulated in the first place, but it is still an interesting point to note that more and more nations are "jumping ship" in favor of the Euro. This is a massive feather in the cap of Europe since it has the clout to expect certain things from states that wish any kind of ties.

This is but one manner in which the expression of disinterest and malcontent screams loudest. I've heard from several international friends that their news services are more and more covering the European Union Parliament than the United States presidential race. There's nothing wrong with that by a long-shot, but in a world where American politics once dominated the airwaves, something's gone wrong.

4.) I don't think every country does fear us. I believe we're still rubbing elbows at the same level with the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Japan. We may be subject to more embarrassment and a little criticism here and there, but that is to be expected when one moves without great popularity in a war against an entire region of this small planet.

I can't help but think what world these people are living in...



Sources? Sorry but I have not seen this discussion going on. Which Republican is advocating "muscular moralism" (that's a new one!).


Okay, maybe Iraq but how can the author get away with including Afghanistan in this equation??



A bold assertion. I guess the Korean and Vietnam wars were essentially a "battle over Europe" then? Rubbish. It was a global struggle between two world views. One side dominated those it could and the other banded together behind American leadership to fight it. It was global, multicivilizational and bi-polar.



I agree...we should have blown up Iraq and left the Iraqis to sweep up the mess. Too bad we are so damn nice when it comes to invading. If only we were more like the Chinese hordes of old...

Here is the money quote for me:


You see, China is finding power by "filling power vacuums". It cannot compete. It offers nothing but poor copyright and patent laws and cheap labor. It is a perfect embodiment of the phrase "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

The situation in China is not all rosy. Income disparity in China is enormous, and growing. People that complain about the US disparity should take note. Also take note that the income in China is still under $2000 per person--less than $200 per month per person. China is home to over a billion poor people. Think slave labor.

Enough commentary, on to the questions...

Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

It certainly costs us money to put Iraq back on its feet. Less money for us means less power for us. Overstretching ourselves militarily and economically is not in our best interest. In this sense, yes it diminishes us.

Maybe slightly off subject but a recent paper shows that years of colonialism actually leads to higher prosperity. Link. Thus nation building is successful for those on the receiving end. I won't mention the Marshall Plan and the role the US played in rebuilding Europe.

Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other?

Europe is run by "technocrats" with internal rivalries at least as big as it has with the US. The answer to this question is "nobody can know" unless they are Karnac the Magnificent. Europe has its own internal problems that are entirely glossed over in this article. Its aging population, its entitlement burden, its growing immigrant (predominantly Muslim) population all pose real threats to its continuation as any kind of power.

Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen their dependence on the US?

A loaded question, but other countries depend on the US for three things: a customer base, military protection, and financial aid. Of course, any state wishes that it didn't need to depend on these, but until this reality goes away, we will find many people in line for our handouts (and our customers).

If anything, we should be more demanding when giving out aid, not less. False friends we do not need.

Bonus question:

Do you believe GW has done irreperable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?

No, and neither does your article's author. First off, nothing is irreparable. Second off, GW hasn't done anything much different from Clinton or any other recent President.

Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

Yes. America is depleting its resources. The logistical differences between colonial empire and global hegemony are much the same and thats what costs. America is deeply in debt and over extended. Unless there is a war soon to reverse the trend, I can't see how America can maintain its current supremacy without complete economic domination.


Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other?

I doubt it. The EU is a castle built on sand. I do not recognise the picture of Europe Christopher paints at all and I've never heard of any one here describing themselves or their political out look as 'European patriotism'. I don't knw what that even means.

What I see is a lot of chronic, escalating, social disintegration within Europe which must eventually lead to collapse and civil war. I've never seen as much crime and violence as we have now, and Muslim immigration is at the core of the problem. Millions of Muslims are being allowed to enter into Europe with the undisguised intention of breaking down the pre-existing nations. The subsequent cost of EU expansion is being paid for in blood as our crime rates explode, more and more weapons are appearing in our once weapon free streets and any opposition to this situation is treated as 'racism'.

Whats happening in Kosovo today, where the Serbs are being forced by the EU to give up a sizable portion of their nation to a Muslim minority is the primary lesson for the future of Europe.


Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen their dependence on the US?

Yes, but it was inevitable.


Bonus question: Do you believe GW has done irreperable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?

No. GW Bush is a product of the USA, not the other way around.

It's funny you should mention the Gini Coefficient, Amlord. And you're right - folks right here in America should take note. But those that need to really take notes aren't the folks complaining about it. From your linked article:



The thing is, we aren't that far behind them:

http://90ways.com/essayarchive/essay69.php

Let's further underscore this, shall we?


http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html

Welcome to the future of America, Amlord.

1. Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

Yes, it most assuredly will. More to the point, it already has. We've been far too eager since the end of WWII, to seek out new places to go and throw our newfound weight around. And what has it gotten us? We're still in Korea, keeping a tenuous stalemate in place. We departed Viet Nam, and 30 years and some 57 thousand American lives later, they have a vibrant economy, no thanks to our "Nation Building" efforts. Now Iraq. Wow, what a raging success that is...

And those are just the military adventures. We've been a little more than ham-handed in all sorts of dealings around the world, trying to force our, not encourage, but force our good intentions on other countries - whether they wanted what we wanted, or not.

Teddy Roosevelt said we should walk softly, and carry a big stick. Instead, we've been stomping around other's backyards, and swinging that stick, either economically or militarily, as often and as forcefully as we could. That's no way to win friends and influence people, at least not in any positive manner.

Bonus question: Do you believe GW has done irreperable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?
Irreparable harm? No. This adminstration has done considerable harm, however, and it will take a lot of work, and a lot of years to repair the harm that's been done.

I'm sorry, but the middle of that paragraph is pure, 100% bull-plop. The United States and Soviet Russia each had a political ideology which drove it to foster client states in order to further its sphere of influence. There was no question of "leadership..." You think the people of Nicaragua lined up bravely behind the United States to save itself from Communism? If America wanted to keep other states free from "Domination" it wouldn't have supported dictatorships all over the planet during the Cold War...

Actually i really don't expect Europe to really last much longer as it is today. I think the regional differences are going to fade and I think immigration will permanently change what europe resembles.

Hmmm, that is a very good point- as Moif has also pointed out- and it shows the lie about how much everyone wants to come to america yadda yadda- Immigration issues in Europe are far worse. But we have the advantage of who our immigrants, legal or not, are. Hispanics is by far the largest immigration vector in the US, the rest are a drop in the bucket by comparison. We also have the most robust population growth of all the western countries- we are populating our country just fine with US citizens.

While ethnic euros are having a declining birth rates, and massive immigration into thier countries- and on top of that- it is real hard to say that the Hispanic culture hasn't integrated or vice versa in the US- while the immigration in Europe is clearly anti-cultural assimilation, in a big way (as Moif also often points out)

But still- countries aren't exactly falling all over themselves to become part of America- whereas there is fierce competition to become part of the EU, and countries like poland and Turkey doing thier darndest to make it happen- Poland has already done it as far as i remember.

Other countries want to do some trade with us- but the rest, well, they want us at arm's length- while they really want to join the EU, as the author pointed out.

So I think the main argument against this article is that Europe IS "house built on sand"- perhaps. Maybe, maybe not- time will tell.

The Euro is slowly but surely on the rise as the nation's currency of choice, and with recent measures to add further stability [since we all know economics determine the foundation of a country], it seems that Europe shall have its place in the twenty-first century as a global power in its own right.

I hear you, and a switch to the Euro by all the ME will be a HUGE disaster for us, in fact, if most of the world does it- I wonder how long until we go "third world"- but the balance in this issue is the 40 million + non-Euro immigrants that very well may destroy Europe and turn it into a cesspool no different than Saudi Arabia or Iraq or any of the other crappy middle eastern countries that you wold rather have a colonoscopy than visit those places.

Well, what's interesting is that my sister has heard rumor that Japan is slowly readjusting itself in terms of their finances and pouring more and more of their resources into the European market to diversify just in case our dollar continues going south. The very idea is scary enough unto itself that a lot of people I know are investing in the Asian and European stocks instead of tying their assets to the American market.

I hear you, and agree- my personal investments are pretty much in Russia- 'cause, well, I don't have much money, and what I do, I use in "growth" industries- you know, motorcycles, 'cause they are being recycled back on to the road, and I am making money off parts by restarting obsolete part lines.

I think this is a scary type of growth industry that you normally see in third world countries - using up things they already have.

It is hard to make my point on this- I have travelled to many third world countries- and this seems to be one of those "common denominators"- instead of making alot of new stuff, they keep re-using old stuff, and whole economies or industry is based on recycling old crap. When I was in Indonesia- I was impressed and horrified to see near naked people dismantling ships right on the beach, and seeing huge plates of steel fall a couple stories up into the water below, where barefoot men in practically nothing carried the sharp steel coated with asbestos up to the waiting distribution center.

Looks like I am the lead dude for that new third world country economy.

That's funny - the thing that grabbed me most was this:

Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?

I don't know, and neither does anybody else, what will lead to America's dimiinishing power in the world. But it will diminish, because nothing stays the same for very long. This whole article could be nonsense and America could remain the dominant global power for another 500 years, but at the end of those 500 years it will cease to be dominant.

Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other?

Again, I don't know. I doubt it, but not in the sense that Europeans will not play a more important role in shaping world affairs again after half a century of introversion.

What I mean is I don't think a pan-European leadership led by the institutions of the EU will be the driver for it in the way the article suggests. I think it's always been a mistake of dominant cultures throughout history that they only seem to be able to understand the world outside their control through the prism of their own ideas.

Thus, anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen was a barbarian who could be enslaved or ignored; anyone who wasn't under the protective and benign influence of the British Empire was losing out somehow. Such understandings of the world not only fatally underestimate the people being described, they reflect the national myth within the dominant power (the Romans were the only really civilised people around, the British were firm but fair paternalists with the best interests of the world at heart, etc).

It is a similarly mythological idea that any cooperative group of nation states must be in the process of forming themselves into a single federal state. America tends to think that's the objective when it looks at transnational bodies - to an extent that explains US hostility to transnational organisations where decision making is pooled (NAFTA, the UN) rather than exclusively American; American history and culture rejects the idea that the American Federal government and it's agencies (particularly armed forces) should ever follow anyone else's agenda. To be fair, America has never really needed to since it has been a significant world power, because its elevation to superpower status happened almost simultaneously with becoming any kind of military power, unliked most others, at least in historical terms. America was an important economic and military power only 120 years after its foundation, a superpower only 30-odd years after that, and the unchallenged superpower barely 50 years after that.

Nobody else moved that fast (except maybe Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan), and nobody else (including those two) managed to sustain their position after the initial reason for achieving it disappeared. America has already done unique and wonderful things and I don't imagine you're done yet. But America is - ultimately - just a collection of human beings, with all the failings that are innate in our species, and the biggest of all of these are firstly our inflated sense of importance (at every level of aggregation from indivuduals right up to and including our species and planet), and secondly our very poor sense of time beyond our own lifespans.

As individuals, we all talk about loving someone else forever, when all we really mean is "for the rest of my life, or until something happens to make me go off you". We talk of our honoured war dead and say we'll remember them "forever" - we will certainly do so for another good few generations, maybe even centuries. But give it a few millennia and I dare say that most of the people alive then, assuming there are any, will be as mystified by our cenotaphs and our eternal flame and our moss-covered and eroded rows of marble stones in Northern France (for example) as we are by Stonehenge or Macchu Pichu. (Though some historians will have a pretty good idea, assuming some catastrophe doesn't erase all of our written & magnetic records.)

So, it is a peculiarly American mistake to think the EU (despite the fantasies of some of its enthusiasts) is ever really going to have a single voice or be a single power. Sure, it may in time expand to include Russia, and/or parts of North Africa and the Middle East (starting with Turkey). But it will still have its internal problems of demography and immigration, of competing national interests under the transnational EU umbrella. It the shorter term its more likely that there will be some much needed reform that reverses some of the centralisation thats been going on (or at least democratises the EU institutions a lot more); Europe is not done navel-gazing just yet.



One thing I also found odd in the article was that India is almost an aside. I think that India is potentially a more dynamic economy and assertive state than China, which (even now) is highly dependent on the US economy. There are grounds for Western hope in this - it is, after all, already a comparatively well-developed democracy. And, they speak English among themselves, for much the same reasons that the Chinese speak Mandarian - a useful legacy of imperialism that allows different people from all over a vast country to talk to one another.

Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen thier dependence on the US?

Why does a country have to be dependent on the USA to be useful to it? While I think American hegemony is already fast-disappearing, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. As the article mentions, the Marshall plan was not only a selfless act of generosity, it was a shrewd investment that made sure that there would be developed economies with which to trade and compete (competition being a good thing).

Do you believe GW has done irreperable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?

As has been mentioned, nothing is irreparable. Any incoming President who can avoid macho posturing and ignorant patronisation will go down a treat compared to GWB.

But again, as has been a recurring theme in my posts since I've joined , America simply has to begin to accept the possibility that some day you will not get your own way on every issue, and that this inevitability is not necessarily a bad thing - your quality of life does not have to get worse, but it may not always be the highest in the world. There's nothing wrong with striving for the best, but do not let the best be the enemy of the good.

I remain unimpressed by predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe. According to the CIA's World Factbook the UK's Muslim population is 2.7 percent, Switzerland's is 4.3, Denmark's is 2, and France is estimated at 5 to 10 percent. Compare that with Israel's 16 percent (ethnically speaking, up to 23 percent of Israel's population is Arab).

I guess my alarm is also somewhat dampened by something I just read in Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal": 1 in 5 people living in the U.S. in 1920 were foreign born. Single-digit Muslim figures don't strike me as newsworthy.

To trust birth rates we need to assume human behavior is just as static as the figures projected, too. We need to assume Muslim women aren't going to go behind their husbands' back and get access to birth control; Muslim girls will, of one mind, choose the orthodox lifestyle and forgo careers and family planning; cracking down on family violence will not improve chances of Muslim females marrying outside their ethnic groups, etc.

What is alarming is religious jackasses like the archbishop of Canterbury advocating religious arbitration.

Will our "nation building" lead to our diminishing power in the world?
If that nation-building siphons resources and talent, yes. I think we're in decline, but then things like the dot-com boom happen. No one imagined how the internet would revitalize our economy in the 90s. Something positive and unexpected could happen again, but we shouldn't bet on it.

Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen their dependence on the US?
Ditto Jules. Why should any country depend on us or other countries, for that matter? Now using us, that's a different story, and I'm sure states will continue trying manipulating foreign events to their advantage, regardless of what the food chain pyramid looks like.

Do you believe GW has done irreparable harm to the future US interests by making us someone that EVERY country needs to fear and defend against?
Frankly I think one of the reasons GW invaded Iraq was to borrow time against inevitable decline. Our decline will do more to turn other states against us than anything—or any one president—can.

That's giving him a lot of credit and historical foresight. I can't believe that pre-Iraqi invasion many nations of the world were as anti-America as some currently are outside the Middle East. Now we have cases of Europe and Japan distancing themselves, the U.K. not even fully supporting our efforts, etc. I don't think Bush did this to curtail the end of American dominance.

It doesn't take foresight to remember republics wax and wane or realize we took the Cold War bipolar world for granted. The situation guaranteed so many states would align with us no matter what we did in the pursuit of economic liberty that would inevitably lead to peace and stability throughout the world. Or so we believed.

I'm not saying avoiding inevitable decline is a good thing. At least it's not the way Bush went about it. I wouldn't be surprised if future presidents go a-liberating other countries through violent means, however. There are plenty of Bourbon Democrats to go around.

While that's bleak, I suppose I have to agree. America has been meddling in other nations' affairs since right around our inception, so it's perfectly valid to say that future presidents will muck things up internationally. Doesn't make it right, but by that logic, Bush was just following an old model and he managed to botch that one too.

I'm barely through the first few paragraphs of this piece, and I'm at a loss.

The EU as a superpower? China's economic brilliance due in part to securing resources in Africa? The world's largest democracy nowhere to be found?

I'm having trouble reading this and some of the commentary here.

Is Europe going to beat us at this game, playing off the US and China against each other?

The E.U., with all the mentions of internal fighting already stated, is an economic good old boys club. One reason they hesitate letting Turkey and other Eastern European states is the nation's GDP. If it brings the collective E.U. average GDP down, they keep them out.

Unifying, I'm sure. To bend over backwards to please the E.U., hoping they'll let you in.

And as far as China is concerned, outside of the wealth gap Julian pointed out, China is desperate to keep up with their population growth and will seek coal and gas wherever they can lay their hands on it. How much of all this economic genius is being spent on alternative energy resources or spreading the wealth among the masses? You'd think that China, being the economic power they are, would be able to afford not to have eight year olds not work in fireworks factories.

And I pretty much stopped reading the piece when they mentioned "China's Han pioneers". China's been shipping people into Tibet by the train load, in part, to pretty much wipe out Tibet's ethnic and cultural presence. Something worth praise, surely. They're also acting with the same disregard for life up north with the Muslim Uighur minority.

Has our unilateral actions and bullying of other countries harmed our future by making states work much harder to lessen their dependence on the US?

If you take out the War on Terror, we have been one of the most generous (often to a fault) nations when it comes to aid and nation buliding in the last 50 years.

If we took half the money we spent in Iraq over the last 5 years and spent it investing in ressurecting a free and democratic Africa, Bush's legacy in Iraq would be quite hidden under the shadow of a resurgent African continent.

But we didn't. Hind sight is always 20-20.

If the next president can focus on a Marshall Plan for Africa then we will be seen as heroes.

And seeing as how Jordan, Egypt and the West Bank take up a sizable amount of our foreign aid, I think in the end, Money talks much more sweeter than any head of state, any foriegn policy can.

I agree with Julian. No money for false friends.