"Yes, ISO, I agree Iraq is only ONE example of US's extraordinary blunders, but it is the ONE example that has profound and far-reaching implications on US' role in global politics of the future. Numbering the issues might be helpful........ ....chhan. But I think the above three points relate to super powerism." => But Poonte bro, look at the Vietnam example. America bombed Laos and Cambodia, and engaged in a bloody senseless battle in Vietnam. Afterall, one of the most widely acknowledged author on war and an able general of the Prussian Army, Carl Von Clausewitz wrote: ?Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain.? I see many similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. Then it was ?domino theory?, today it?s ?pre-emptive strikes? or the fear of WMD. Then too, people protested. And when America finally withdrew from Vietnam, people made similar predictions? but, America remained America. People fear America, and it?s the country/people you fear, you tend to respect more. Rule by fear. America rules by fear and $$.. And the Bush administration is not just sitting idly. Condalezza Rice says, Diplomacy is in. She will work towards rebuilding the international community?s trust because she ahs no other options. If she doesn?t then the next national Security Advisor and Secretary of State will do that. Bush, Rice and Rumsfield aren?t going to be in the office forever. On Russia: "The key to Soviet Empire's fall was it's over indulgence on military. While stock piling all sorts of weaponry from conventional tanks and artillery to nuclear rockets, The Soviets clearly neglected the notion of balanced economy, wchich eventually led the system to collapse." => I totally agree with it. The Soviet Empire broke down because it had to deploy a large number of troops in Siberia because of it?s ?perceived? China threat. And it took it?s toll in it?s economy. The Soviet Union disintegrated. People give Regan much credit for it, but I personally think Nixon deserves more credit for the American Cold War victory, than Regan or Bush. ?Now, there may be some hardliners who wish to have the old Soviet's power back. But if they choose to do so, they should know they are bound to fall again. So far, the educated Russian mass who know better, seemes to understand that the way of the future is having a strong economy, as opposed to a strong military. For this reason, I do not think the Europeans need to fear a rise of militarily strong Russia again; and even they do, they can easily tackle the issue by increasing economic ties with Russia, which they have been doing in a rapid pace for the past few years. Againa, no need for the Europeans to kowtow to US interests because the old-style alliance based on militarism (NATO) is becoming irrelevant by the day.? => I don't disagree with you on entirely this one either. Of course, the Russian mass wants a stable economy at this point, but Russia isn?t a fully liberal democracy in which the mass dictates the government. It?s the opposite in Russia. Putin and his FSB (The new version of KGB- CIA+FBI combined) will do what it thinks is in the country?s best interests, not what the mass thinks. If there?s a majority that wants a stable economy, there?s a significant minority that wants the Old Soviet Glory back, let?s not forget that. Given the internal problems in Central Asia, Russia might militarily interfare there and bring it under it?s control, if not incorporate them in the Russian federation. Recently Putin made it clear that Russia will follow the American pre-emptive strikes policy to counter the Chechnyans. If you translate this into a lay man?s terms: Watch out Central Asians and others (look at what happened in the Ukranian elections), we will do whatever we need to do to protect our citizens and our INTERESTS. Speaking collectively of the Europeans, they have a reason to fear Russia. Russia has its own natural resources, so it does not have to depend on others for it. So Russia has more bargaining power than China. Also Russia is far more stronger than the Western European nations, and although the chances of a war is not there, the Europeans cannot completely rule out the possibility of a war with Russia. Yes, the Europeans are engaging Russia economically, but Russia hasn?t given up it?s aspirations to again become a superpower, if not recreate the Soviet Empire. Recently they developed a missile that can penetrate Missile Defense of America. They are also experimenting with new models of aircrafts/bombers. Therefore, the Russian nationalism has to be taken into consideration. Economy and all that aside, NATIONALISM is also a major factor when we analyze the events unfolding in the world. In my view, the Europeans need the US for the balance of power in Europe. You don?t feel secure living next door to someone who has 200 guns and is always acquiring new ones with better shooting capabilities. If you are forced to live next to him, you?ll definitely try to be on his good side. But you won?t be completely trustful towards him. Ressh uthyo bhane padkai diyee halcha Kalishnikov.bhatatata .. ratatatatata .So you look for someone who will come to your rescue if that person tries to shoot you. Rational human beings look for security against these kind of unpredictable neighbors, and the Europeans being a bit more rational than many others, they will look towards the Global Policeman, i.e., America.