Ironweed
01-04-2006, 01:13 PM
Too bad he didn't offer links to exactly what it was he said in 2000, that he's now repudiating.
This won't be the American century
RUPERT CORNWELL
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Whatever happened to the new American century? On the eve of 2000, I remember (with some embarrassment) writing with absolute conviction how the future would belong to the United States.
I based that assertion on the status of the United States as the only country with a truly global reach. It spent more on the military than the next dozen countries combined. Its economy accounted for more than a quarter of global output. Its budget was in surplus, American technology ruled the world. Not since ancient Rome had a single state been so dominant
Continued (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/254236_uscentury03.html)
Interesting points:
What of its "soft power" -- the innate appeal of the United States as projected by its ever-growing economy, its culture and the unstoppable advance of the English language?
Soft power was supposed to be the U.S. long-term trump card. Now it looks more like the six of clubs than the ace of spades. In economic terms, not only China, but also India and the countries of the Asian rim are snapping at the United States' heels. After its post-Cold War eclipse, Russia is re-emerging as an energy superpower.
I certainly do NOT agree with this:
History is shaped not only by events but by individual humans. It is impossible to imagine the United States' reputation would have sunk so far and so fast, had Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president. The next president, or presidents, will be able to regain some lost ground.
This? Well, we'll see...
But on the eve of 2006, I offer this assertion. This will not be the American century. In all probability, the zenith of American power has passed.
This won't be the American century
RUPERT CORNWELL
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Whatever happened to the new American century? On the eve of 2000, I remember (with some embarrassment) writing with absolute conviction how the future would belong to the United States.
I based that assertion on the status of the United States as the only country with a truly global reach. It spent more on the military than the next dozen countries combined. Its economy accounted for more than a quarter of global output. Its budget was in surplus, American technology ruled the world. Not since ancient Rome had a single state been so dominant
Continued (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/254236_uscentury03.html)
Interesting points:
What of its "soft power" -- the innate appeal of the United States as projected by its ever-growing economy, its culture and the unstoppable advance of the English language?
Soft power was supposed to be the U.S. long-term trump card. Now it looks more like the six of clubs than the ace of spades. In economic terms, not only China, but also India and the countries of the Asian rim are snapping at the United States' heels. After its post-Cold War eclipse, Russia is re-emerging as an energy superpower.
I certainly do NOT agree with this:
History is shaped not only by events but by individual humans. It is impossible to imagine the United States' reputation would have sunk so far and so fast, had Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president. The next president, or presidents, will be able to regain some lost ground.
This? Well, we'll see...
But on the eve of 2006, I offer this assertion. This will not be the American century. In all probability, the zenith of American power has passed.