That (sideshow) view may be summarized as follows: a Continent reluctant to spend on defense, offering only "postmodernist" armies useful enough as peacekeepers but next to useless as warriors, given to earnest blah-blah about the pre-eminence of international law, inhabited by a declining and evermore aged citizenry living in overregulated economies that have not shown significant growth for at least five years.

Contrast that image with another offered at the meeting: that of an India (the elephant jockies, not the Buffalo hunters -p) growing at over 7 percent a year, inhabited by more than 500 million people under the age of 25, busy buying hundreds of advanced aircraft, convinced that armies are still created to fight, churning out English-speaking high-tech graduates by the million each year, and persuaded by Islamic terrorism that its strategic goals and America's are often identical or at least complementary.

So, which of these parts of the world is more worthy of the attention of the United States? Which is a compelling affair: the intensifying and fast-changing relationship with India, or the largely stagnant alliance with Europe that served above all a cold-war strategic challenge now overcome?

Beyond India, of course, lie other issues demanding of U.S. attention.

China, with its own growth story and welter of staggering statistics that suggest its challenge to American supremacy must be taken seriously.

A low-intensity Iraqi war that has already taken a significant toll.

The attempt to ignite and manage a democratic transformation of the Middle East that is portrayed as central to long-term American security.

In this world, Europe slips down the list. It often looks more complicated than compelling. It is sufficiently split, sufficiently stable, and sufficiently stalled for back-burner treatment to seem most appropriate.

So, which of these parts of the world is more worthy of the attention of the United States?