The major question that will face all of us during the next decade, then, is the way in which inevitable U.S. decline will be managed. Will the outcome be apocalyptic? A nuclear exchange with China? Merely 'very violent', like the French withdrawal in Algeria in the 1960s? Or relatively peaceful? To say that Washington has a prima facie short-term interest in making the world a more dangerous place, is not to say that it will necessarily act on that interest. Whether or not the temptation can be resisted depends of [sic; "on"?] a variety of factors, many of them not under anyone's control. Europe, however, may be in a position to make a significant contribution to world peace by making it absolutely clear that it will refuse to enlist as a foot-soldier in defence of parochial U.S. economic and political interests. Maximal explicitness on this point is imperative to prevent a miscalculation by the U.S. government. Stronger ties with East Asia will give this stance added weight.
(Raymond Geuss, "The Politics of Managing Decline," Theoria 52 [December 2005]: 1-12, at 10)
Note from KBJ: If Europe makes it "absolutely clear" that it will refuse to assist us, then we should make it "absolutely clear" that we will not defend Europe if it is attacked. Why do I feel as though Geuss would beg us for assistance should his country come under attack? He's like a petulant teenager who doesn't appreciate who provides for him and protects him.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 