Not that I expect anyone to have noticed, but I have been "pushing" people towards the work of Immanuel Wallerstein on these pages for a little while now. I and others have also been doing this in other spheres, forums and walks of life.

(I am an Australian and a member of the ALP)

I consider his work to contain a series of warnings of very great urgency.

His work also contains within it the seeds of a very great Hope and vision for the post-capitalist world that we are all (consciously or otherwise) engaged in the construction of, now and into the foreseeable future.

Thank you FP for publishing his essay.

El Al is recognized for security. If the carriers, United, Delta, Swiss Air, controlled security regarding their fliers, we would pay attention to which airlines were safest which means they would all be competing to maintain the best record.
Tiffany's does not expect NYC cops to protect their merchandise and has very subtle security.
Airlines would hire the best in background validation before the flier got to the airport. Only last minute or unconfirmed fliers would be subject to search. Most airlines would set up iris scan or other devices for frequent fliers or pilots & crew. The carriers stand to lose not only an aircraft and crew, but also the trust of the public if one of theirs goes down.
Govt seems always to be preparing for the LAST attack not the next one.
The TSA has all the budding future of a federal police force much as the Gestapo in Germany did. Not a promising future. there is a reason our founders left law enforcement out of the Constitution. Federal police never works out well for citizens.

Isn't Leslie Gelb's article THE definition of conventional wisdom in the U.S. (and in the beltway to be specific)? Of course, truth be told, conventional wisdom need neither be true nor wise... simply conventional

Dear FP,

Please delete my (mis)post of 11:05 AM ET

January 3, 2011. It was a very strange mistake on the part of my laptop.

Apologies for odd computer behavior....

I was disappointed not to see any ‘unconventional wisdom’ article addressing the global con of ‘man-made’ climate change. Why has man-made climate change become such ‘accepted dogma’. Is this, as Prof Ian Plimer claims, environmental fundamentalism? The religion that “the real problem with the world is your fault, but do not worry because we can ‘fix it’ ”, provided of course you pay additional taxes and divert huge resources to solve a problem which many scientists question the exists ? Is this the environmental fundamentalist equivalent of the irrefutable science of a ‘flat earth’ ? Or is ‘sound bite science’, propagated by the media, self–seeking politicians and a few Hollywood actors (lacking any sound or otherwise knowledge of earth sciences). When are we going to get past this period of poor science and misallocation of resources on a global scale, so that we can deal with some real problems / issues / challenges ? rather than tilting at wind mills and building yet more environmentally suspect wind farms?

Really Anne Applebaum? I'd expect more from someone in your position:

"DHS serves only one clear purpose: to provide unimaginable bonanzas for favored congressional districts around the United States.." What about the thousands and border patrol and customs agents working to keep Americans safe from everything from drugs to disease-ridden agricultural imports? What about the immigration agents who investigate drug trafficking organizations and transnational gangs, and unscrupulous employers who prey on immigrant workers? What about the Coast Guard that patrols our ports and coastlines, and responds to save the lives of Americans in trouble at sea? What about FEMA, yes FEMA, and the emergency support they provide during and after disasters? What about the Secret Service, or the US Fire Administration?

You cite homeland security grants, which account for a portion of FEMA's budget, which is a portion of the overall DHS budget. And while homeland security might not have been the most appropriate name to choose to capture the department's mission to protect Americans from ALL hazards, these hazards do touch all Americans - even those in Wisconsin.

Your commentary on TSA misconstrues where TSA fits into the antiterrorism picture. TSA is just one layer of the effort, and just because it's the one layer that the public confronts, people perceive it to be all that's going on to protect Americans. That's a false assumption, and perhaps the government should do a better job of informing the public of all the efforts that aren't as visable, but commentary like this just makes the misconception worse.

Dan's article caused me to remember the memes of the 1950's, when Whittaker Chambers notoriously thought he had joined the losing side when he left the Communist Party, there were recurrent alarms over bomber gaps and missile gaps, the graphs of tons of steel and coal produced showed the USSR on a path to outproduce the U.S., and the West was on the wrong side of the anit-colonialism sweeping the world.

I just noticed that Immanuel Wallerstein was possibly too modest (??) to mention the titles of any his books in his short bio. Or perhaps this evinces a later dissatisfaction with them. (??)

In any case, a much lesser mind and being -ie. me - highly recommends that all should read his remarkably erudite, elegant and visionary
"Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century"

The French settlers in Quebec did not expand in spite of the Canadian geographical vastness. The British pilgrims who arrived in New England had, in the vast expanse of American land, a chance for feeling justified in their religious faith.
When they came to the Pacific coast, they only had to cross the ocean to get to China. Would their descendants have any place to go when they come to the rim of the world? The world is not boundless; it has limits.
Economics is a dismal science because it deals with scarcity, but, as Prof. Paul Samuelson said, there is optimism in American economics as it refuses to see Malthusian limits. American liberalism with its attendant free trade theory would not bloomed as beautifully as it has but for the American God-blessed natural resourcefulness.
I am a Japanese but I am not taking delight in the supposed or imagined decline of American influence. The Japanese have benefitted a great deal from its contact with the West and North America.
Fair America, I weep to see You haste away so soon;
As yet the early-rising sun Has not attain'd his noon.
Stay, stay,
Until the hasting day has run But to the even-song.

Economics is the super-structure of capitalism and capitalism is the super-structure of a modern way of life.
I can agree to Prof. Wallerstein's diagnosis. It seems, however, that he has not presented a medical prescription yet. If he should suggest communism or something like that, I would go and see another doctor for treatment no matter how expensive it might be.
Unnan City, Japan

China is rising and America and the West are declining relatively. But I do not agree to a straight linear projection of this trend.
China is trapped in an unprecedented situation which it has not encountered before. It is an unusual experience that it has not made in its history.
China did trade sporadically with distant lands like the East Coast of Africa, the Middle East and India. But it had basically remained an autarkical society until its contact with modern West. The Chinese leaders, who were always autocratic, took political, precautionary measures so that trade with foreign countries would not interfere in their political and social control. They were afraid of a rise of an autonomous merchant class, whether through domestic or through foreign business transactions, which would be rich, amass wealth and influence, intervene in politics and undermine their power. This picture is to be seen in Beijing.
China is no longer a self-subsiting and self-contained country. It is hugely dependent on the external world. The Chinese leaders are scared of this in spite of their bragging.

remaineba

China traditionally had a tributary system. This was its security policy. The legal concept is alien to it of international society being composed of nations each of which is legally equal. It does not even prepare itself to the concept. It loves to be seen big; it knows how to stand big in the eyes of other nations. It has cultivated and developed the art for this for over two thousand years. When, for instance, the chairman of the central bank of China demanded that the dollar as the key international currency should be brought to an end, he did not intend anything immediately pratical or possible. He just wanted to make everybody impressed with 'grandeur of China' as Mao Zedong was dying even in his Great Leap Forward and Great Cultural Revolution to impress the whole world with greatness of China.

Ann Applebaum, thank you for this interesting critique of DHS. Many Americans view terrorism as a Trojan horse for government to further consolidate its power over the citizenry, rather than any real threat to the country. With that in mind, increasing intelligence efforts might not be the best thing in lieu of a DHS. We must first be able to distinguish between a real terrorist threat and one created by the government. Generally, efforts at real investigation of terrorist events are lost in the hysteria, and what is left is an expanded boundary of power by federal agencies. Americans are beginning to catch on to this game, and quite honestly, I have found many anti-conspiratorialists switching sides in the debate recently, much to my amazement. We know the FBI conducts numerous sting operations, which are then publicized by the media as credible terrorist threats. All one needs to do, to change such a sting into a real event, is to, for example, provide real as opposed to fake explosives, as was done in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. (See the New York Times for details on the government informant involved in that case.) Of course the public is confused, and probably angry. It is unorthodox to bring up these issues, but they must be sorted through instead of denying their reality. The driving force is, of course, an agressively expansive foreign policy that would in no wise be tolerated by a peace-loving country; thus the need to employ the terrorism card at every turn. Can we sort some of these issues out, or is it beyond the pale to bring them up? You are right about 9-11 being a terrible intelligence failure. It was a marvelous PR ploy to put all the blame on the "terrorists."

I forgot to mention something in my first comment. I said economics is the super-structure of capitalism and capitalism is the super-structure of a modern way of life. Therefore, as I would like to add, what is challenged is not economics nor capitalsm but our modern way of life.
I would like to add another thing. It is about free trade. Free trade is not a universally good thing in the sense that it always brings everybody and every country and every sector of society an increased level of income.
It is an interesting concept of economics. It tells us who gets in a given situation what and how much of it at what cost. Whether it should be actually applied is a highly political question because there are almost always people who are going to lose.
Those who advocate are sure to have something to get. Those who are opposed are sure to lose something or all.
That applies to countries. I would wonder if the United States could afford to concentrate, in terms of international competiveness, on haute finance and money games, leaving a lot of citizens to live homeless on the streets.

Not simply an economy's size but also it composition matters. Suppose here are countries A, B, C, D. Country A is like the United States. Country B earns all its money from the sale of wheat and rice; Country C from oil and natural gas; Country D from money paid by sight-seeing tourists from abroad. Suppose each country's economic size is the same. We cannot say each is as powerful as any of these. China is not definately an A-type country. If the renminbi is to be an international currency, China needs to win genuine and spontaneous trust and faith from other countries; its high-ranking officials must stop forgery of money and dubious transactions.
China has got a lot of benefit from international trade but it does not seem yet to be at all ready to keep this system in international cooperation. It will not be inconceivable that if China goes on growing in that manner, if not at that pace, it would be destroying its own nourishing system. What if many countries should decide to stop engaging in undiscriminatory trade though all would be hit? China's national power would drastically dwindle.

America and the West have lost some of their influence in world affairs. This is a good thing to welcome in a sense, because it means a lot of Asian and African countries are beginning to be economically imroving.
America and the West will never lose all power and influence that they have. America will remain the target of hated; it could aggravate that if it does not act circumspectly. America, on the other hand, will continue to receive strong support from freedom-lovers across nations. It will remain strong enough, even though it will never be able to democratize many parts of the world, to defend human rights and dignity in many parts. Unnan City, Japan

'the target of hated' is not wrong. 'the target of hatred' is correct.

Why superficial?

Palestinians do not equal Egyptians. They are a different people. Your suggestions that concessions to a different nation (Egypt) somehow transfers to another nation (Palestine) because to you they are one in the same is frankly ignorant. It's like America doing something nice to England then expecting Germany to do something nice for America merely because the English and Germans are both Germanic peoples. It borders on racist what you are suggesting.

Why is it arrogant?

West Bank and East Jerusalem are overwhelming majority Arab, but because Olmert was so kind in your view to offer mere scraps of land from these territories the Palestinians should be grateful for it? Disgustingly arrogant.

Why superficial?

Palestinians do not equal Egyptians. They are a different people. Your suggestions that concessions to a different nation (Egypt) somehow transfers to another nation (Palestine) because to you they are one in the same is frankly ignorant. It's like America doing something nice to England then expecting Germany to do something nice for America merely because the English and Germans are both Germanic peoples. It borders on racist what you are suggesting.

Why is it arrogant?

West Bank and East Jerusalem are overwhelming majority Arab, but because Olmert was so kind in your view to offer mere scraps of land from these territories the Palestinians should be grateful for it? Disgustingly arrogant.

All this just goes to show that both the masses and the elites can be completely wrong.

Daniel W. Drezner
…AND CHINA ISN'T BEATING THE U.S.

All I can say is THIS ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTELY ABSERD AND IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLE HERE ON US DECLINE. IT'S STUPID FOR YOU TO BE PRESENTING THESE TWO ARTICLES EITHER OR FOR OR AGAINST. WHICH IS IT? I AGREE THAT THE ARTICLE THAT DEPICTS OUR CHALLENGES IS A MORE BELIEVABLE SCENARIO.

I admire Foreign Policy for publishing these essays. Is the American press is going mainstream with much of the news we should know as readers? Some says that the US press is not going with a lot of news that people ought to know. I beg to differ. Yes, there are signs that something is going to change.

Well, I beg to differ with some story-lines as well but I admire the quality of the posts. For example: One story rightly said that China has taken a lot of benefit from international trade but it does not seem yet to be at all ready to keep this system in international cooperation. It will not be inconceivable that if China goes on growing in that manner, if not at that pace, it would be foiling its own broth.

The concept of economics was interesting as well. It tells us who gets in a given situation what and how much of it at what cost. Whether it should be actually applied is a highly political question because there are almost always people who are going to lose. Ann Applebaum was interesting also, and was right about 911 being a terrible intelligence failure that I’ve the impression that many Americans view so. Many can agree to Prof. Wallerstein's analysis too if not the answers. Prof. Paul Samuelson rightly said there is optimism in American economics as it refuses to see Malthusian limits. I think American liberalism with its free trade theory would not flourish as beautifully as it has but for it natural bounty. Lastly, I should say Pilmer’s arguments may not the unconventional.

A good read. Kudos to FP.

If I may be so presumptous "Jaeykay" and I (John Milton XIV) are having an exchange in the comments section under "Think Again, America's Decline".

Whilst I have the inclination to reply and answer to your very interesting and perceptive remarks, I'm afraid I simply don't have the time at the moment..

In any case, perhaps we would simply be going over the same ground which I think that "Jaekey" and I have been over.

I just very quickly add or repeat what I stated above.

Read Immanuel Wallerstein's work and you may find the answer to your own questions concerning the "futuristic" prescriptions which we all engaged in the construction of ,and the debate about.

Dear Foreign Policy,

As YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA has also (somewhat angrily) sort of requested, may I please be so presumptuous as to request that you commission a follow up piece from Immanuel Wallerstein??

That is to say, so that he may be allowed to present his own views on what may lie ahead for all of us in the (uncertain) future of the post-Capitalist world.

(Eg. Wallerstein has a fascinating but tantalising discussion of Weberian “substantive rationality” in his work as an idea which guide us.)

Whether my request is met with a yay or nay, I thank you very much for your excellent and always stimulating publication and wish send my congratulations and best regards.

The United States government has a history of overthrowing unfriendly governments, including democracies, and backing tyrannies that scratch its back. Besides, democracy, as a form of government, was abhorred by the Founders and rejected as a form of mobocracy. I wish people like Mr. Halperin would stop using the term as if it described some sort of ideal form of government. A lot of people have been murdered by governments with the word "democratic" in their title. The United States is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [the United States’] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.” – Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, 1821

Finally someone authoring the truth, now if we can just get the for-hire politicians to realize it.

As I am an American citizen who engages in no criminal activities, the main result of airport searches is, for me, resentment and anger at the government that is pretending to protect others from me.

So, those searches, at least in my case, are actually counter-productive. First, I feel no safer because I (or the housewife behind me in line) have been searched. and second, I feel animosity to my government for ignoring the 4th Amendment and demonstrating that it is not my friend.

TSA has gone too far in abridging our constitutional rights to travel and be free from unreasonable searches. It is just as important to stand up for the Fourth Amendment as it is for the First Amendment! If the American people don't take a stand we will lose more and more of our freedom and could find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

Sadly Congress at best seems to give lip service and at its worst seems to be in the grip of lobbyists and special interests. It is up to citizens to call their Congressmen and let them know it is time to start representing us and to ask them to start standing up for the public and protecting us from these TSA abuses.

Please don't alienate the hardworking citizens who pay their taxes and support this economy. Our freedom is precious and we want to protect it.

We as a country can't even protect out own president so homeland security is just another police force with an agenda not yet disclosed. Want to stop terriost? Here's how:

Keep our nose out of their business....let them live like they want to and let's worry about our own. The world doesn't need a one world government and we're the bully trying to inforce it. How many jobs could we create here in America if we removed ourselves from the wars world wide and cut out all of these government agencies that have proved they offer no solution to the problems we face. Repeal the NAFTA agreement because it's responsable for most of our job losses leading up to the point that we're now totally dependent on other countries for our needs. Do away with the dictatorship of the world bankers known as "The Federal Reserve"

Spent the night before an early holiday flight at an upscale hotel. And the bellhop (twice) arrived in the lobby with luggage that wasn't accompanied by the owner-passengers. So maybe we need to go back to square one 'cause this system with naked scanners and body gropers is a farce.

Was excited to learn some new insights and be offered some new perspectives with this one.... So it starts with why the world economy can't keep growing....by offering as fact many misconceptions (or at least debatable claims).

The biggest of which is that the world population will continue unbounded growth. Oh I guess he just said 9 billion people at 2040, after which it is predicted to decline. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/think_again_global_aging?page=full But unbounded growth is implied by the omission, which smells like alarmism.

Also cited is the increased energy required to dig up new energy. Left out is the utility gained from each unit of energy surely being magnitudes greater than it used to be. I'm pretty sure Model-T's didn't get 30 miles per gallon and the carbon footprint of doing business via email is probably a little better than the pony express.

Let's not forget the continuously upward productivity of the average world worker per each bit of sweat and gallon of gas used. Is the assumption here is that per capita output is assumed to remain flat?

Call me a blind optimist, but I believe innovation will continue to move us forward. Rare earth mineral getting too expensive? Different technologies will emerge that don't need them, it's already happening. Also looms is the assumption that consumption per capita will rise with population. Really? http://peakoil.com/consumption/u-s-gasoline-demand-begins-long-decline/ This article tells me that progress and growth eventually lead to more energy efficiency per capita as people can afford greener tech.

I'm excited for our world because of the innovation that will undoubtedly continue. I'm thankful to be born an American and I know we need to change a lot of our wasteful ways. But I truly believe that the rest of the world can become as well off as we are, and that through human ingenuity, there will be enough to go around at roughly our current us standard of living. Our biggest threat as a society would be to slow down growth and innovation in order to make everyone more equal out of fear of sustainability.

Because in 2040, according to your own stats, when I'm old and grey in a nursing home, there won't be many youngsters around to help me enjoy my sunset years. I'm betting on solar-powered robots to fill in just fine. ;-)

"I don't fear computers, I fear the lack of them" -Asimov

Globalization has replaced the isolation of the Cold War and, of course, with globalization, has arrived an unbridled opportunism: an opportunism that has grown large numbers of terrorists and terrorist wannabes; human-exacerbated climate change and its projected consequences; caveats that the projected demand for oil had exceeded the ability to supply it i.e. the so-called peak oil hypothesis; pandemics based on new or variations of known diseases that spread with human help and for which the preparation for the prevention of their spread is inadequate and the World Wide Web which has grown Wikileaks - not just a few but thousands. I am baffled by the lack of attention paid to the sheer numbers - thousands of terrorists and terrorist wannabes, thousands of Wikileaks, natural disasters which kill and displace thousands, thousands of combatant and noncombatant deaths and children orpaned due to war and, when we talk about the economy - billions in money waste. And what about these "system-wide" failures e.g. the 9/11 security breach and the BP oil disaster. Are "system-wide" failures with no accountability and acceptable loses the future? What are the precedents and practices for the solution to these problems?

I have seen two approaches applied. In the first, nations convene for a convention on a single issue e.g. the UN Convention on Climate Change and, in the second, a delegation is sent to individual nations for an objective assessment re: a checklist of countermeasures e.g. UN Resolution 1373 re: counterterrorism. A 'global peacebuilding initiative', however, and an International Bill of Rights (see "2048: Humanity's Agreement to Live Together" by Dr. Kirk Boyd) suggests a multifactorial approach i.e. a Convention would not convene or the delegation would not be sent unless, at least, five global issues were on the same table and these questions would apply to all 192 nations: What are you doing to end war? What are you doing to prevent the spread of disease? What are doing about money waste? What are you doing to increase the efficient use of energy? What are doing to adapt to the consequences of climate change?

Hmmm - I could ask Foreign Policy Magazine the same set of questions.

I drive through the Poynette, Wisconsin, area a few times a year on fishing trips. The entire town isn't worth a million dollars.

>Imagine if security officers in Amsterdam had been made aware of the warnings the underwear bomber's father gave to the U.S. Embassy in Abuja.

Imagine if the "underwear bomber" hadn't been taken past security by a "well dressed American" and escorted onto the plane even though he did not have the required travel documents.

I totally agree that the TSA has NOT made us any safer, and I have said so in previous blogs.

http://www.unmitigated-truth.com/2010/01/terrorists-say-jump-do-we-say-how-high.html
and the ever popular
http://www.unmitigated-truth.com/2010/11/tsa-protection-or-perversion.html

So what DOES the acronym TSA stand for? Could it be..
Trained Security Apes?
Tough Sh.. America?
Touch Someone's Ass?

I am sure that you all have your favorites... Please share.

I agree with the assessment regarding the waste and lack of effectiveness within the DHS/ TSA. However, the article will be of little note unless a series of articles pursue with great vigor a candid review of its inception, performance to-date, current status, its related programs and associated costs. Let us not forget that ALL of the 911 participants were identified as risks as they entered the country and individuals within the chain of command chose not to act. The system did not fail; people failed. Rather than focus on the chain of command and the short-comings therein, the DHS/ TSA was thrust upon us in a classic "CYA" move and with its incredible price tag. Daily we now suffer an incremental loss of freedom, and moreover, any who raise a voice of protest self-identify themselves as a potential threat in the eyes of DHS/ TSA. I believe that any competent management team independently selected could deliver much better results and effect a more secure America for 1/3 the current cost.

All the incidents since 9/11 and including it, were not genuine terrorist plots, for the simple reason: they all were missing one necessary component - an organization taking responsibility and making political claim. Without that, it's not a terror act, it's either act of yet another unstable individual, or false flag operation set up by the government, of which the history of all nations is full. The former are largely unpredictable and can happen anywhere - however unfortunate, it's no more than tragic accident in life, and there's no real reason for the society to react on them harsher than on any other life-taking accidents, which routinely take thousands of lives every year without anyone really worried - car accidents, doctors' errors, work accidents, lone gunmen in public places, and so on - it's all inevitable. Isn't it amazing how whenever another gunman shoots people in another public place, the authorities are calming us down by stating that this was not a terrorist plot - does it really make a difference? And for a lone individual, there are thousands of places and occasions to do harm, of which transportation is maybe 1/000. In this light, investing unimaginable billions of dollars in that particular 1/000 is obvious nonsense. How about naked scanners on the beach, in symphony orchestra hall, or on the bus or train stop on the way to everyday work? those places are as crowded as the airplane, and the ticket is much cheaper.

As for the genuine terror plots, don't we have a professional organization called FBI? who is accidentally also taking billions of our tax dollars for their work, but who, again, so far has not encountered a single terrorist plot that was not created by themselves by approaching the same unstable individuals from Part 1, and carefully guiding them to the arrestable act by months (sometimes years) of work, readily providing ideas, money, transportation, explosives, and everything else they never thought about by themselves.

This scam has been going on for decade, and I don't think its incidental that comparable scam has been going on in the banking industry. More and more this all looks like the fragments of the same big picture of the society, where one hand is robo-signing fake mortgages and then uses them to take away family homes, while another hand is "protecting" those same families in the airport.

Dear Ms. Hachigian,
It seems to me that American pundits have a hard time accepting that China wants to play by its own rules and the United States has no instruments to coerce it to change its behavior. To me, Beijing seems willing to negotiate agreements it benefits from, just less willing to accept frameworks designed by Washington to its own advantage. While Washington's (liberal) pundits think such a behavior is perfectly fine for their own country, it bothers them when others do it... Well, just to exemplify: you yourself write that the NPT "requires the United States and the other 188 signatories to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency at their nuclear facilities." It would be wonderful if the story would be so beautiful. But it's not. The treaty is discriminatory, with the United States and other four countries who tested a nuclear weapon before 1967 being absolved from inspections, allowed under the treaty to keep their nukes for as long as they "negotiate in good faith." Well, one might say, tough luck for the states without nukes if they agreed to this skewed agreement. True, I answer. Their bad luck. But America's now with China ;)

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," that basically sums up your 9 page ariticle...

When do you suggest people should have started to note the relative rise of China (and oft-overlooked India)? Five years before it surpassed the United States? Five minutes before? Five years afterwards? This article is rather like one in a British magazine arguing that the UK could never lose its global supremacy to the United States, written in 1910. Just as the U.S. supplanting of British power was a near inevitability, the U.S. is going to lose its supremacy over the next hundred unless China and India screw up very badly indeed, that's simply a matter of demographics. (It might regain it hundreds of years further on, because it has a lot of highly desirable land that isn't well populated yet, and many other advantages that won't go away completely, but that's too far out to be relevant to current policy).

The challenge for Americans is to make America a great place to live when the chest-puffing hegemony has gone. Like British politicians didn't. You don't have to be a superpower to be a great country to live in. The best country in the world in the 20th century was probably Switzerland, not the United States. Right now it isn't America or China, but perhaps Australia or Finland. Superpower status is only actually beneficial to a tiny number of politicians, civil servants, and other power-mongerers.

I drive through the Poynette, Okey oyna Wisconsin, area a few times a year on fishing trips. The entire town isn't worth a million dollars.

These essays were sprinkled with a good bit of nonsense.

You left out a biggie .... "Iran is a scary threat"!

As a long time reader of Mr. Gelb—almost his every writing-- I felt he had a long period of reliable and very introspection provoking writings. Alas, as his first book misrepresented US Vietnam War policy, now, at the end of a sterling career, he is misrepresenting the *quantitative* dynamics of US "pressure" on Israel.

Let us not forget that Israel betrayed the US by deceiving it in order to go nuclear together with apartheid South Africa. Israel did not need to go nuclear and is the only nuclear power to have contemplated using its nuclear bombs on Arabs, TWICE, no matter what "pressure" the US imposed on it. And let us not forget the pure chutzpah of Israel’s deliberate air and sea attack of a clearly marked USS Liberty in international waters, killing more Americans (31) than died from the bombing of the USS Cole (18).

I would recommend reading Jimmy Carter latest diary of notes on how Israel responded to his Camp David "pressure." As he recently said on a radio broadcast: "I was the only Democratic President denied a second term because of the Zionist lobby's punishment of me for taking Sinai away from Israel." George Bush Sr. also said much about the pressures on him, leaving him, making him a one term president for the same reason.

Mr. Gelb has been a brilliant provocateur of meaningful dialogue and for that he leaves behind a brilliant legacy for responsible debate. But, should he now choose to become a "hasbara-ist" in his twilight years, it would be a very sad eclipse of his great stature as thinker our youth should study.

As a long time reader of Mr. Gelb—almost his every writing-- I felt he had a long period of reliable and very introspection provoking writings. Alas, as his first book misrepresented US Vietnam War policy, now, at the end of a sterling career, he is misrepresenting the *quantitative* dynamics of US "pressure" on Israel.

Let us not forget that Israel betrayed the US by deceiving it in order to go nuclear together with apartheid South Africa. Israel did not need to go nuclear and is the only nuclear power to have contemplated using its nuclear bombs on Arabs, TWICE, no matter what "pressure" the US imposed on it. And let us not forget the pure chutzpah of Israel’s deliberate air and sea attack of a clearly marked USS Liberty in international waters, killing more Americans (31) than died from the bombing of the USS Cole (18).

I would recommend reading Jimmy Carter latest diary of notes on how Israel responded to his Camp David "pressure." As he recently said on a radio broadcast: "I was the only Democratic President denied a second term because of the Zionist lobby's punishment of me for taking Sinai away from Israel." George Bush Sr. also said much about the pressures on him, leaving him, making him a one term president for the same reason.

Mr. Gelb has been a brilliant provocateur of meaningful dialogue and for that he leaves behind a brilliant legacy for responsible debate. But, should he now choose to become a "hasbara-ist" in his twilight years, it would be a very sad eclipse of his great stature as thinker our youth should study.

Nye's conclusion is wrong. The American rise to power, replacing Britain after WW-II has lead to almost continuous warfare on our part, typically in some of the poorest nations on the planet.

China should be worried about our aggression, not vice versa. We are the nation unilaterally invading others and threatening still more, selling more arms than anyone else.

And don't forget Afghanistan is contiguous with China. Can you imagine how the USA would be freaking out if China had as many bases in the Americas as we insist on having in the countries surrounding them?

To use William Pfaff's term, we fail at "reverse-think," to consider how we would react if treated as we treat others. But that is characteristic of imperial powers.

The pressure on Palestine from the US:

During the 1970s, for example, the United States supported King Hussein’s violent crackdown on the PLO cadres who were threatening his rule in Jordan. During the 1980s, the United States refused to recognize the PLO until it accepted Israel’s right to exist. After the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the Bush administration refused to deal with Yasser Arafat and pushed hard for his replacement. After Arafat's death, we insisted on democratic elections for a new Palestinian assembly and then rejected the results when Hamas won. The United States has also gone after charitable organizations with ties to Hamas and backed Israel’s recent campaign in Gaza..

from http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/10/can_the_united_states_put_pressure_on_israel_a_users_guide

Mr Gelb, exactly what pressure does the US exert on Israel? Cutting back on the annual $3 B aid package? Threatening a withdrawal of support in the UN? Cut back on military purchases and joint training? Stopping tax deductions on donations for illegal settlements? Or is a yearly public speech given with a wink and which the Israelis ignore good enough for you?

You claim you are exploding the myth America does not pressure Israel. All you do is repeat all the one-sided half truths we have heard over and over.

Where is Cheney and where is Bush along with the rest of the coterie
to save their trinity from the havoc taking place between the Pharaoh of
the upper kingdom and the lower kingdom. Soon cries of help the wolf
is coming would be heard in occupied Jerusalem, And when god Israel
is asked by US Senate Where! Well we have not deceided to place our
creature in Amman or Sana.

The problem with the Malthusians is they are thinking way too small. Our planet, as beautiful and rich as it is, is a tiny speck of dust in an unimaginably vast universe. Our sun produces more than *twenty trillion* times our current global power usage. A single small asteroid contains precious minerals worth more than the combined GDP's of the USA and China! The idea that we are approaching any limits to growth is therefore totally absurd! The only danger is that we allow Malthusian thinking to limit on our imagination and our ambition, at which point zero sum economics kicks in and we begin slaughtering each other over finite resources. This is the situation that must be avoided at all costs, and which will be avoided if we continuing pushing outward toward the stars!