It's a radical thought, btu here goes: the US is right. The rest of the world is wrong.

Living in Europe, I see a continent in decline. The reasons for the decline are diverse, but this piece in the Economist helps understand it. It describes Europe's plans for global influence: 'Exporting “our rules and standards around the world” was one source of European power' says EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

A continent that hopes to lead through bureaucratic innovation is doomed, I'd argue. It's pathetic and shows that Europe has quit. I wonder what the generals in Burma make of the new EU wheat directives.

The Middle East disapproves of the US, but it doesn't have a free media. Nor does much of Asia. This doesn't seem to matter to the people who hype-up these surveys of anti-Americanism - a fact which says more about them than either the surveyed countries or the US.

The US remains the leader in almost every major field of human endeavour, though particularly on the scientific, corporate, and military fronts. It produces more than half the academic research published every year. It scoops far more Nobel prizes than Europe.

Given these facts, why shouldn't the US merely trust it's own competence rather than taking lectures from Europeans?

Did you ever hear of Al Jazeera? This is a media source on the par with the BBC, and it's broadcast all over the Middle East. You may not be as sophisticated as you think you are. Europe has always been in decline. Ask the Italians how many times they've been invaded. And, thanks to the internet, there's no problem obtaining a free media in Asia.

As to bureaucratic process, as horrible as that may sound, it sure beats being blown up by a land mine, IED, or other weapon of mass destruction.

If America remains the leader in almost every field of human endeavour, how come we have an infant mortality rate equal to Honduras, and the only place we're number one is in our prison population? And why do those pesky Europeans have six week vacations, free health care and other amenities of life, unlike Americans?

I would say that not listening to people has been one of the gravest sins of this administration, and that had the leaders of Washington DC taken to heart some of the lectures that the Europeans gave us before the war, we would not be in the present and future messes that George Bush created.

First, al-Jazeera: a) it's not exactly unbiased. b) it's activities in Saudi Arabia are highly circumscribed c) the Saudis also heavily police the web.

These activities alone force self-censorship on journalists, which as any reporter will tell you is by far the most efficient form of censorship. Says the BBC:

"All newspapers are privately owned, but their publishers and editors are appointed or must be approved by the government. Papers based in Saudi Arabia have to obtain a royal decree to operate. Although in principle there is no legal restriction on freedom of expression in the kingdom, censorship is strict, and criticism of the government and Islam is automatically barred."

As for child mortality, I don't really see how what you say can be the case: the US has the same total life expectancy as Luxembourg.

And as for Iraq, it was a civil war waiting to happen. With the US there, the civil war is restricted (hopefully) to Iraq; without US forces, it would probably have turned into a regional conflict. History will judge Bush very kindly - his European destractors (Chirac and Shroeder, both of whom have been replaced by more pro-US figures) much less so.

As a European, I find it touching how Americans still view Europe as a land of art, culture, and intelligence. But as a European, it's impossible to ignore the complacency and intellectual stagnation here.

So, Europe is a big art museum with no new works being created. At least it has that. What does the USA have to sustain it on a long term basis? The US ascended to global prominence during the Cold War of competing government/economic systems. Apparently it won.

The problem is that the ascendency was based on creating and maintaining favorable trade relationships and constant growth. How can there be a long term future for an entity with no checks on its growth? Eventually others will not allow the inevitable infringement.

"It's a radical thought, btu here goes: the US is right. The rest of the world is wrong."

The principles of statecraft are much like the principles of fencing. They have been developed and honed through centuries of battle and death, explored and polished by the greatest minds of each subsequent age and adapted by the most skilled practitioners of every nation. They are passed to us as one of our culture's most sacred birthrights, to be studied, practiced and mastered for the sake of survival in a harsh world. Of the two, only statecraft is still relevant in terms of survival, but it is still easy to recognize bad fencing, if you know what you're looking for. By the same token, it is equally easy to recognize bad statesmanship.

The question of whether America was right or wrong to invade Iraq does not enter into this particular discussion, only whether or not we did it skillfully. Most countries have been around longer than we have, and are not as foolishly obsessed with moral virtue as we are. Launching a preemptive invasion might not be virtuous, but most people would have forgiven us if we hadn't made such a mess of things. We went into a country without bothering to study its socio-political dynamics or culture, then we violated time honored principles of statecraft at every turn. Our strategy (to the extent that we even had one) was marred by ignorance and incompetence. Hence, we are still in Iraq and people are still dying at an unacceptable rate.

"A continent that hopes to lead through bureaucratic innovation is doomed, I'd argue. It's pathetic and shows that Europe has quit. I wonder what the generals in Burma make of the new EU wheat directives."

Exporting bureaucratic innovation worked wonders for the Romans and the British. And what are we doing in Iraq but exporting bureaucratic innovation in the form of democratic government institutions, based on nothing but our conviction that it works better? If we hadn't made so many stupid mistakes, it might have been a good thing.

As for Burmese generals, they probably won't care about wheat regulations, but they probably also don't care about European schools either. Do you mean to imply that only those things that will impress foreign militaries are valuable to a society? You seem to think that only imperial expansion and colonial mercantilism are the marks of a great society. The powers of Europe left that behind because, in the long run, it is simply not a practical way to run a society. So I suppose that they have quit, but they were right to do so. The European Union is founded on the idea that Europe should never again tear itself to pieces in pointless wars. That is why, almost sixty years ago, France and Germany bound their coal and steel industries together, knowing it was the best way to prevent a future war between them. It was a masterstroke of statesmanship, and it worked.

You seem to think that a society at peace must be a society in decline. I would argue with that. I live in Europe now and I don't see it in decline at all. I do, however, see the potential for decline in my own country. The more we spend on pointless foreign wars rather than our own infrastructure, our own schools, our own people, that decline grows ever sharper.

Your romanticised account of the history of fencing can, I fear, be turned into a riposte.

As a former schoolboy champion, I remember with regret the trend of the "flick hit" that began to manace the sport in the 1990s. New technology allowed the creation of steel so supple that a foil could be flicked like a fishing rod, its point tapping an opponent on the back and scoring a cheap, indefensible shot.

It was, if you like, assymettric warfare. Rather than attacking straight on, as tradition demanded, the flick-hitter metaphorically flew his hijacked jets into one's civilian zone.

Older fencers were befuddled - old dogs rarely learn new tricks, and they sat around grumbling about it and nursing the stripes on their backs, while reflecting on past glories. But younger, more vigorous fencers found ways to counter the threat.

Greenwich, I think you are right on a couple points. I have to agree with you about the decline of Europe for the time being. (There's always a chance for a resurgance in a generation or two) But for the most part, Europe is a global financial center at best.

But what you (and the article, incidentally) are missing is that its not just European opinion of the US that matters. Anti-Americanism seems to be at an all-time high worldwide. Its not as bad as it could be - we aren't hated by everyone in Asia, and hey, we've got Poland - but it needs to be better is America is to be considered a "world leader."

Part of the issue is that the problems we face, and therefore must lead on, are not as simple as they were in WWII or the cold war. Its not enough to simply be the world's most powerful free nation if we aren't effectively promoting freedom and prosperity. By prosperity, I mean economic development. How many articles have you read in the past two years about China investing in Africa and South America? Where are we on that? (As for promoting freedom, lets leave Iraq aside. We know what world opinion is on that).

Other issues abound. Global warming? We haven't stepped up, or effectively made the case to the rest of the world. Terrorism? Its an important issue, but all we're doing is asking nations to tow our line.

To be a leader, other nations need to turn to us because of some tangible, beneficial payoff from being within the US's circle of friends. We can't just coerce people. China, India, Russia, and now Iran are all attempting to embolden their own spheres of influence. We're not going to compete with them for hearts and minds just by talking about the statue of liberty and Islamic Terrorists.

Touche, sir. :-)

The flick is actually a good example of what I'm talking about, as well. It could never have been an effective attack with a rapier or smallsword, which is why tradition demanded a straight thrust. Had modern steel allowed for the kind of blade flexibility that made the flick possible two centuries earlier, it would never have caught on because nobody in their right mind would want to learn an attack that would be useless in a duel. Without the highly artificial and perfectly safe environment provided by electric scoring and extremely flexible weapons, the flick as a tactic is suicide. I personally loathe the flick, partly because I like reading old manuals on classical fencing, but also because, as a military officer, I would not tarnish my technique with play-fighting for fear it might bleed over into my other activities where life and limb are actually threatened. Instead, when I started competing in college, I switched from foil to epee so I could attack the unguarded forearm before a flick could score. Epee, as they say, is truth. ;-)

How this matters in the context of our discussion is that, in international politics, the blades are still sharp and mistakes are still paid for in human life. A politician who fails to learn the classical forms in this environment is doomed to miscalculate his enemy's strategy and employ inappropriate attacks, losing an unacceptable amount of blood and treasure in the process. In this sense, Bush is the flick-hitter facing an actual duel, waving a smallsword like he would a fly rod, leaving his enemies covered in annoying welts but very much alive and free to lunge with their point.

I do like your analogy, though. Comparing the flick to asymetric warfare is an apt parallel (although several political scientists did foresee the tactics used on 9/11). However, I stand by my assertion that Bush is still an abysmal strategist no matter what weapon he is using. If I had made similar miscalculations to his in a freshman level political science class, I'd have been failed. His mistakes are that obvious. If he'd read and understood a few military theorists like Clausewitz, Machiavelli or Sun Tzu, he could have done much better. He might have known to tailor his ends to his means or taken the pains to know his enemy before engaging him. But he did not, and thus blood and treasure (both limited resources) are squandered.

Thank you GreenwichJ and jwschmidt for making points my uncaffienated synapses won't allow this morning. I think perception is as important here as jwschmidt's "effectiveness."

Any so-called anti-Americanism among our allies is temporary, being somewhat fortunately embodied by the figure of George Bush, finishing out his lame duck. If he can refrain from bombing Iran before he leaves office (which all the neocon* nincompoops seem hot to whip up), we'll be in pretty good shape. And I agree; history will certainly be kinder to Bush than to Chirac and Schroeder, two craven and cynical non-leaders.

That said, I have no "wisdom" for which course the U.S. should pursue post-Bush. I can imagine several different scenarios--but all of them would involve more collegial relations with other countries, while maintaining an aggressive stance toward religious totalitarians in the ME.

*"neocon" in its proper sense of that school of foreign policy, not in the dimwit sense of "everyone who follows Bush"

"The only thing that history teaches us, is that history doesn't teach us anything."

I'm sorry, every time I try to choke that back. Every time I fail. It's fatuous, I know.

But it does relate to a much truer axiom, one with which, as a military man, you'll be familiar: generals always end up fighting their previous war, not the present one.

In Europe, this is the Cold War. That war was won by the West subsidising dictators who would otherwise be overthrown by men loyal to the Soviets. "He's a bastard, but at least he's our bastard," as Kissinger said so memorably of the Shah of Iran.

With the end of the Cold War, almost all the "bastards" disappeared. Some (Suharto, Pinochet) you will have heard of. Many others were much more obscure. I only know of Paraguay's Alfredo Stroessner because he had the brother of one of my colleague's killed for being a communist.

Any justification for the world tolerating such "bastards" ended with the Cold War. Their use has expired. Yet the Cold War mentality is alive in Europe. It's commonplace to hear people saying a certain country "needs" a dictator to keep order.

These Europeans not only opposed the invasion of Iraq; they even opposed any support for Iraqis who sought to overthrow Saddam themselves, for instance in 1991. For a continent scarred by fascism, this mentality you'll admit is extraordinary.

It's top of the greasy pole not because everybody else voted for it but because nobody is currently big enough to climb above it.

As for putting up the EU as the next contender; thats just a red herring. The EU may be single political entity at one level but it is never, nor does it want to be, a federal superstate. So Mandy's fantasies of being the united states of Europe, and a counterweight to either China or the USA, will remain just fantasy.

However, as recent world events have clearly shown, the USA might often be the leader but frequently has very few followers.

I agree that supporting dictators as a vehicle to advance our own political agenda is a tactic that should have died with the Cold War, and yet we continue to do just that, even as we cast down other dictators who have outlived their usefulness. And even if we stop supporting all dictators everywhere right this instant, it does not follow that we should hunt them all down and try to right our past wrongs, unless we can be absolutely certain that we won't be making a bad situation worse, like we have in Iraq.

We have yet to see if the Shi'ite rulers of Iraq will be any better than the Ba'athists we've removed. So far, I'm inclined to doubt it. Bush the Elder (not just Europeans) left Saddam in power for very good reasons, which Bush the Younger seemed not to know, or more likely, merely did not understand. Time will tell whether Iraq requires a dictator to rule it... after thousands more die and hundreds of billions of dollars more are spent.

Regardless, unless Iraq becomes the cradle of the next Enlightenment, I can't say I'll ever agree that it was worth the cost. From where I'm standing, it looks like we've exchanged a secular dictator for a theocratic oligarchy. I'm not seeing the net gain, nor how our approach was supposed to have produced our stated goal.

Grenwichj,

As an American voter, one of the factors in determining my vote in the next presidential election will include your position. That being, I will be very unlikely to vote for a candidate who listens to European lectures regarding our nation's position in the world. Europeans don't get a vote in our elections. I'm quite happy with that fact...

There was one notable omission from my "bastard" narrative. One which I really believe should change your mind.

After the Cold War the "bastards" disappeared from every region of the world. Bar one: the Middle East.

In the Cold War, when dictators were commonplace, there was nothing aberrant about the US propping up Hosni Mubarak, the bin Sauds, or King Hussein of Jordan.

Now, post-Cold War, these exceptions have become glaring. Why, Muslims ask, has America supported democracy everywhere but in the Middle East?

The people asking this question most loudly are the Muslim Cold Warriors, men who fought and died in the deserts of Afghanistan for the mujahideen. They more than anyone deserve credit for bankrupting the Soviets and ending the Cold War.

They were betrayed by the US. Rather than Muslims being allowed any kind of self-determination, they remained the subjects of puppet regimes installed by the British 80 years ago.

Their mujahideen's reaction? al-Qaida, an organisation that above and beyond all else is committed to the removal of the bin Sauds and every other puppet government. We are fair targets because we continue to support the thieves, thugs, and mass murderers we imposed on the Muslim world.

The only way we can defeat al-Qaida is to end our "addiction to imported oil" (Bush, 2006) and, by extension, our reliance on the Middle Easten tyrants who supply us with that oil. As you say, Muslims might not choose to replace these tyrants with Western-style democracies - indeed, they probably won't. But at least whatever emerges will be their choice of government - not ours. Iraq was just the beginning.