Hard to dispute this. It's either China or India. We ain't gonna be it any longer.

Europe no longer has more nuclear weapons, more tanks, more artillary tubes, more ships, more troops, and more aircraft than we do. They don't need them any longer since they aren't interested in fighting each other any more and they have no nearby enemies.
Their oil supply is two hundred miles away and willing to trade with them, which is more than we can say. We can't cut our military budget and continue to get reliable oil supplies. We have too many enemies. With reason.
They have the largest chunk of Earth's surface and it's well watered. Other than tropical crops like coffee, coconut, and chocolate, they are agriculturally self sufficient. America recently imported more food than it exported for the first time in five hundred years this year. (I think. We might still be a net exporter, and when the dollar drops we will be again).
If they wanted to bother, they could turn the world's largest supply of natural gas into methanol and not import oil at all. We are running out of natural gas faster than we are running out of oil. Both of us have adaquate supplies of coal.
Global warming is going to give them a lot less trouble than it is already giving us. We have to worry about the growing power of hurricanes. They don't. Their growing season is getting longer. We are water deficient and in the worst drought in 9,000 years of dendrochronology.
Economically they are net creditors to the rest of the world. They have imported so many migrants from the rest of the world that we don't have trade advantages in that respect. We have more migrants per capital, but half of them are from only one country and don't count for expanding trade. They are metric, like the rest of the world. We aren't in many areas that count for exports.
Our only advantage over Europe is that we don't have to learn another language to trade. They already speak English to trade with each other. On the other hand that makes it more difficult for us to sell things to them.
Forget China and India. Europe rules.

I have to wonder at which point the UK will start to look to India rather than the US as its major partner. The colonial relationship with India had a much greater impact on the UK than the US colonial relationship.

The Bushies have done exactly what the British Tories did in the 1920s and 30s. They spent their time and effort having empire days and engaging in bellicose posturing while completely failing to notice that they were only hastening the end.

The Iraq adventure is probably going to go down as the last hurrah for US imperialism. The neo-cons wanted to demonstrate US power and that is what they have done, the world now knows the limitations of US power. The US can invade practically any country but is unable to occupy a country larger than about 2 million people without putting itself on a war footing and is probably incapable of occupying a country of 20 million if it does.

This is good news because it means that pretty much all schemes for military expansionism are now impractical. China could probably invade Taiwan but they would find occupation even more difficult than the US is finding the occupation of Iraq.

Some pretty unpleasant things are still likely to happen in the Global Balkans but this will be mostly Chetchnya type medium intensity civil war.

In order to wield future influence the US needs allies. The Bushies have thrown away all the traditional allies except for the UK and Australia, the two industrial countries that have the strongest cultural and economic ties to India that are not a rival.

Another issue that should be considered here is that the Bush administration has been very close to the dictator of Pakistan despite the fact that he took power because the democraticaly elected govt. tried to shut down Musharaff's support for terrorism. Musharraf created the Taleban and also provides heavy support for the Cashmere Islamic terrorists. This is hardly likely to impress India.

Another point to think on is the fact that the incompetent invasion of Iraq has made Iran into the regional superpower. Every way the situation might be resolved ends up with Iran emerging as the undisputed regional power.

There is no way that an Iraqi govt. is going to be stable long term with US bases on its soil. The militants are going to continue to atack them as a way of attacking Israel and the US.

While the US did manage to hang onto military bases in Germany the situation is completely different. The torture chambers that were discovered in Germany were run by the NAZIs. The only human rights violations that the Allied soldiers were known to have committed were a number of summary executions of concentration camp guards when Belsen and other camps were liberated. These were generally considered understandable and excusable. Nobody outside the GOP and fellow travellers considers Rumsfeld's chamber of horrors in Abu Graihb to be understandable or excusable.

The only Iraqi govts that are sustainable long term will be heavily dominated by Iranian backed shia.

The only fortunate part to the situation is that its better to have the somewhat more moderate Shia branch of Islam where govts are considered to have a mandate only if they govern for the people than the Saudi branch.

The most lasting thing I learned during my year studying abroad was that, on a daily basis, most people do not think about the US. They have more important things to worry about. The rest of the world does not care about Emperer George and his Neo-con courtisans. They've always known that he has no clothes.

Yes to much of the above but what is up with "We can't address the poverty in our country wholesale--most of it is rural poverty anyway" ?

I've never been to India but I understand taht there is tremendous, grinding poverty throughout the country, in the cities as well as the countryside. I don't understand how that can be minimized.

I'm going to have to ask him about this to be sure, but I believe one of my friends, who's soon going to be an officer in the Marines, said that it doesn't make any sense to have a large nuclear arsenal in this day and age. Maybe I've misplaced some of my respect for authority in him, as he's not a general or anything, but still, he has to go through all sorts of stuff that regular soldiers don't go through, so I figured his opinion was a little more valuable.

In any event, it made sense to me.

And what a shock it must have been for those Congresscritters to know that the Cold War is really over at last.

No more bipolar world, great victory over the Evil Empire. But now more than a dozen years on, the only result this administration's great thinkers can see coming from the victory is that instead of blocs aligning around *two* superpowers, there should be just *one* pole star around which the entire world revolves. Is it "our due," as Cheney once said in another context?

Never mind that all through the Cold War there was a Third World, that all through the Cold War the vassal states were assiduously trying to eject their respective imperial powers (bleeding them of treasure while they could, of course). This administration's bright minds can rejoice over the liberation of Poland and Ukraine and at the same time moan that the Germans don't cringe and bootlick like they did in the old days.

They want it all ways. They want to crow about Ukraine and at the same time have all other states behave as if the Cold War logic still applies. Don't those countries know their own best interests?

Actually they probably do, so it's no sale. Terrorism won't replace the USSR; that's been the other constant of the Cold War (and long before). In most of the world it's the pushback that comes from trying to establish state control, or a tool that states use to contest borders. It was used in this country about a century ago, in fact.

All these administration bright minds are really silly people. They can't conceive that what excites them (or what makes electoral sense to them in this country) might be irrelevant to others. Dollar hegemony used to make their whims more relevant, but that appears to be waning, and with a significant push from the bush administration.

Without the Cold War to impose discipline, the former vassal states are pretty free to work around the former powers. They seem to be pretty good at it, too. And now a bunch of Congresscritters have had their noses rubbed in it. I hope it taught them something.

"Another thing he said that was mentioned a number of times was the relationship with Australia."
Dump baseball, folks. Learn cricket.

The rural poor of India-

There are a lot of them. They have been poor for a long long time. They have adapted culturally to being poor. What they leaders mean is it is not a political problem because there are few expectations for great improvements.

Prior to FDR and rural electrification, houses without electricity were not uncommon, nor was it a big political issue for those without. Prior to LBJ and the war on poverty, many houses especially in Appalachia and the rural south, still did not have indoor plumbing. Through government programs, expectations have been raised. There would be political problems if low wage earners were asked to go back to houses without electricity or indoor plumbing. My grandfather's brother lived in a house (shack) without indoor plumbing until the 1970s when his son bought him a trailer with plumbing.

"The most lasting thing I learned during my year studying abroad was that, on a daily basis, most people do not think about the US."

I don't know where you went, and I don't know what you mean by "daily basis", but here in France, they tend to spend an ungodly time thinking about America. When a French defense concern, Dassault, was buying a French national newspaper (Le Figaro), Le Monde began its editorial - this was its very first sentence - asking, "What would be the reaction in the United States if the Washington Post were bought by Lockheed-Martin, the maker of the F-16?"

Yes to much of the above but what is up with "We can't address the poverty in our country wholesale--most of it is rural poverty anyway" ?
I've never been to India but I understand taht there is tremendous, grinding poverty throughout the country, in the cities as well as the countryside. I don't understand how that can be minimized.

It is easy for outsiders, who want the problem solved overnight, to assume that nothing is happening regarding poverty in India. In fact incredible strides have been made over the last fifty years.
VS Naipaul wrote three books about his trips to India in around 1966, 1979, and 1991, so each about 13 yrs apart. It is worth reading them back to back. In the first book he is just horrified by the poverty and ignorance he sees everywhere. In both the two followup books, he is pleasantly surprised at how things have improved. (If you follow the sequence of numbers, another book is due. Personally I do hope he gets round to writing one soon.)

Often improvement is little things that you and I would not even think of --- for example the publishing of a magazine somewhat like the US Cosmo that tells women, for the first time in their lives, that they don't have to listen to what their fathers and brothers and husbands say, that they have a right to some control over their lives, that their daughters deserve to be educated and so on. Something like that, like education, or migrations from village to city, lay the groundwork for the future, but it takes more than a generation for a certain amount of change, and too much change too fast produces all around misery and instability.

It is frustrating for outsiders, like it is sometimes frustrating for those living there, but people should not confuse an optimistic situation where most indicators are positive (India and most of Asia bar maybe Myanmar, Laos, Norh Korea) with a bleak situation where things are standing still or going backwards (parts of the Middle East and most of Africa).

As I said on road to surfdom itself, when you start talking about the "greatest empire the world has known" it's already on the decline. The Brits didn't seriously get into being a great empire until the end of the 19th century when the trends were turning against them, and recognizably slow at the time: Germany's tremendous industrial revolution and resulting economic and military strength, free trading becoming a disadvantage for Britain rather than something they benefitted from. And don't forget the Boer War. A very nasty surprise.

It's "serfdom." I don't know what "surfdom" is, but it probably has little to do with politics, economics, etc.

Tom, the name of the blog is a deliberate pun (the host lives near a beach).

Yeah, OK. My bad. I'd never seen that blog before.

Good comments. I read most of 'em, and there were a lot.

Maynard Handley wrote, "I've never been to India but I understand taht there is tremendous, grinding poverty throughout the country, in the cities as well as the countryside. I don't understand how that can be minimized."

It's easy to understand: greater public recovery of Ricardian land rent, combined with government that is not entirely corrupt and which is to a reasonable degree interested in benefitting the populace.

I wish people would learn first before spouting off about India. I'm Indian and first off, poverty is a fact of life there, not 'grinding
poverty' and all that balderdash. You're looking at a country which is technically speaking 50 odd years old. In that time-frame given the political and economical situation world over, it has done a lot to improve things for it's people.

The idea of American style free-economy won't wash much in India as much as any ruling government would like. Can you imagine an Argentina style economic ruin in a land of 1 billion? No politician would be alive. After 300 years of being economically vacuumed by colonial powers, I find it quite amazing that we haven't descended into dictatorship or split up further, though I do confess, that it can happen,anytime.

If you're a firm/business/company trying to sell/buy/interact in India, I'll leave you with this answer which was given to a parliamentary question[1].

"There are 3,372 languages in India and only 216 are spoken by a group of 10,000 persons or more, Rajya Sabha was informed today. As per the
Census of India, 1991, there are 1,576 classified and 1,796 unclassified languages and out of these 10,000 persons or more speak only 216 languages"[2]

Ever wonder why Kellog is having a tough time selling it's pathetic stuff in India? :-)

Most firms give up and walk away. As one prominent leftist in India once said, that's OK because we are people first and *not* consumers.
Remember, when companies refer to people as consumers, you're in deep s**t. Then we die of starvation, of course. :-)

Footnotes:
[1] Remember Charles De Gaulle remark about governing and French
cheese?

[2] http://headlines.sify.com/news/full...php?id=13628620

Maynard Handley wrote, "I've never been to India but I understand taht there is tremendous, grinding poverty throughout the country, in the cities as well as the countryside. I don't understand how that can be minimized."

It's easy to understand: greater public recovery of Ricardian land rent, combined with government that is not entirely corrupt and which is to a reasonable degree interested in benefitting the populace.

----------------------------------------------------

No he didn't, you stupid pratt. He was quoting someone else, followed by an explanation of why that someone else was wrong.

======================================
Damn, Brad, what's with the borked comments? Not only can I not add formatting, now I can't even add carriage returns.
I understand you want to strip the comments of dangerous HTML, but you could surely allow (i), (b) and (br); or else implement something like Markdown

What is particularly sad is that the US was actually poised for an extended period of global domination four years ago. Clinton's surpluses meant that dollar hegemony would and could continue indefinitely, no one could touch us militarily, and there were few strong objections to overall leadership of the world community by the USA.

The world may not have been thrilled with US domination in 2000, but given the alternatives it was considered an acceptable condition.

Then Bush comes along, and screws things up so badly that the alternatives to US domination started looking not just like a good idea, but an absolute necessity.

What the current situation reminds me of is a global example of what happened to the town I grew up in. When I was a child, the town was basically "owned" by one man (a Republican), who acted pretty much as a corrupt but benevolent dictator. Democrats couldn't get elected to dogcatcher, because this man made sure that just about everyone got a piece of the pie. If a new school was needed, he donated the land, if the Little League needed new uniforms, he provided them, if the volunteer fire company needed new equipment, he lead the fundraising drive.

When he died, and his son took over, things changed. The son was far less generous than the father, and far more prone to favoratism. It didn't take long before a Democrat was elected to the township committee---and for the Democrats to take over control of the township.

That happened 30 years ago, and since that time the Democrats have been running things in the town I grew up in (and in fact the head of the State Democratic Party is from that township). The son of the "benevolent dictator" is now considered just some rich old guy---no longer someone to be respected and feared. No one jumps when he says "jump" anymore---and no one has jumped for decades. (perhaps the key moment in his downfall was when the township used the power of eminent domain to take some of his land to provide a new road. He tried to stop it, and lost in court. The father would have given the land to the township---and been seen as a benefactor.)

When GW Bush took over the White House, it was like the old corrupt philanthropist dying, and the son taking over. Alternatives that were never considered while the father was alive suddenly became viable---and once that happened, the power held by the son went into an inevitable decline.