Timely article. National and regional power bases have never stopped shifting throughout history, and this situation is not about to change. There is rarely a single reason responsible for any individual 'decline and fall', more often an accumulation of imbalances that eventually undermines the entire edifice.

Previous empires had their own trajectories, but we are once again unable to learn the major lesson of history, which is that such power shifts are an inevitable occurrence. Affluence begets decadence - not specifically in the moral sense, but most certainly in the intellectual sense. It is as if power and control are a drug that affects the ability to see beyond one's own rhetoric - this was as true for the Roman and British Empires as it is now for the US.

However, I don't think it is constructive to point a finger at the leader, whoever he might be at the time, because the myopia is a national characteristic, not an individual one. Nor, I believe, is it appropriate to single out religious fervour as a major ingredient of the process, although it clearly is another example of how thinking can become muddied.

There is no immediate answer to the problem, of course, because it is simply impossible to argue colours with a blind man. Ask any US patriot, and they will tell you that the problem lies with the rest of the world - the Middle East for using their oil as an economic weapon, the Europeans for being such wusses, the Chinese for resisting exchange rate changes etc etc. This is followed by the opinion that if it wasn't for the steady hand of the US, the world would be in chaos.

The only role the rest of the world can adopt that might have some emollient effect is that of mediator, making it clear that while they do not support the US' aggression, whether fiscal or physical, they are willing to help them through this difficult phase. A bit like someone helping a friend come to terms with their alcoholism.

For another perspective on american global hegemony and the fate of nations who pay no attention to growing pressures on their resource base, see Jared Diamond, the author of the highly regarded "Guns, Germs and Steel", and his most recent book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". The word "choose" in his title is noteworthy.

I agree with Pericles, you can't blame just George W. Bush. Possibly before he was re-elected Americans could say that they did not know what he was getting up to and never approved of it. But since his re-election we have to conclude that Americans generally approve of spending a lot of citizens and money in Iraq.

The attitude that "we know best" is deeply seated in a huge number of Americans, not just GWB. The rest of the world needs to be aware that the next US President may not be much different and make plans accordingly.

Blame George W Bush personally? Hardly, he is just a greedy draft-dodging frat-boy whose only travel outside american before his presidency was to Tijuana in Mexico, and who coasted into the white-house on his father's money and influence after conveniently "finding god".

You might also want to check out "empire of bases" ... http://www.risq.org/article267.html

I agree there Eric,
The last election in the US used electronic voting machines that did not leave a paper trail. Even cash registers leave a paper trail.

Those machines can be programmed to produce whatever result is required, and people have now statistically analysed exit poll data and compared it to election data results.

The result:- It is more than likely that Bush did not win. see…http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

However Kerry has hardly raised the issue of whether or not the election was rigged. They all seem as crooked as each other.

Invest in gold.