I think this is largely about semantics. Yes, the US can project power, but now we know what that means: being able to rain death and destruction on whomever it wants, or being able to credibly threaten to do so, but not being able to occupy significant stretches of territory in unfriendly nations, or install friendly and stable governments at will. I think PNAC envisioned something more than that.

I didn't mean to "discount" the US. What I was trying to say is that if the US fails in Iraq (which it will, of course), its decline will be more apparent to everyone than ever. It will then be like Bush—a lame duck whom nobody likes, but still with considerable power to do harm. But how long can you run an empire on hard power alone?

Clearly, with its combination of militarism and neoliberalism, the US has run into a dead end. Military might is always based on economic might, both industrial and financial, but with its neoliberalism, the US is letting its manufacturing atrophy, while financially it manages only because of the "international reserve currency" status of the dollar. This is not a sustainable model.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns