Preemption policy toward "rogue states" has been eroded.

So for instance, if the administration started to build a case for invading Iran or Syria, that Americans would not be less inclined to permit it? I think you are wrong, and I hope I don't have the opportunity to prove it. (maybe I should hope for the opportunity to prove it -- and before November '04 would be most beneficial!)

And The United Nations' importance on security issues has been elevated.

I think the author clarified what he meant by this in the parts you didn't quote, for example: The warm reception the president recently gave U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was a step toward reconciliation. It's not surprising; the United States needs the United Nations more as preemption recedes and deficits rise.

It's pretty clear that a lot of countries in the world will not provide troops to help our efforts until they receive a UN blessing. Whether this is more true now, is hard to prove one way or the other. Again: we will have to wait for our next adventure to find out for sure.

And And in creating enormous new obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president has probably eliminated further serious use of an indispensable tool -- nation-building -- although, to be sure, it was a tool he never much cared for.

In one respect, I think this is jumping the gun. We will have to wait a number of years to determine whether history will judge our efforts a wild success (like the Marshall plan) or an utter failure (like Viet Nam).

For the short term though, I can't see Americans signing on to any more nation building efforts. Can you really? Do you really think we can afford to build more countries? Doesn't sound very libertarian.