In the tradition of using cool buzzwords for complex topics, I'd like to throw this into the mix.

Buzzword aside, the analysis is accurate. I wish I had a dollar for every liberal who was convinced, during the Cold War, that only America's militarism made the Soviets a threat. The author uses Cambodia as an example. I also wish I had a dollar for every liberal that told me the only reason the Khmer Rouge arose at all was because of America's bombing of Cambodia.

Jimmy Carter finally acknowledged the nature of the Soviets after the Afghanistan invasion basically not only shoved his face firmly into the concept, but clog-danced on the back of his head at the same time. Somehow previous Soviet invasions of nations like Hungary and Czechoslovokia had drifted off the radar screen.

As the article points out, in all the world, only one nation seems to be expected to deal with serious international violence, and only one nation is continuously condemned for doing so.

Where the article seems to be leading is full acceptance of the U.S. as "global policeman," and doing the role like it ought to be done. Not at all sure I like that idea, but God knows we need some form of global policeman, and sure as hell the U.N. and the babbling bench-sitters in Europe ain't it.

.

(Note: This is different from "hedgemonism," which states that good walls make good neighbors.)