Comments (9)

Has the U.S. really more influence than the E.U in the world today?
I think there is an argument to be made that the E.U has more global influence, exercising "soft power" based on siplomacy, values and economic might. One can also argue that the US has lost a considerable amount of influence precisely because of the use of force.

Have you heard about the International court,or Kyoto or the land mine ban?
Ever wonder why bottles of soda that you pick at your local supermarket come in two litters?
Seems to me that the EU is in a better position to lead in a multipolar world

This is a fascinating thesis, and some of the comments are well taken. As an American Gen-X'er, however, my worry is that we too have passed into the "third generation" Mr. Bisca references and, indeed, seem to be racing toward the lowest common denominator.

In the 200-plus year history of our great nation, we fought a revolution against all odds to throw off the yoke of the world's greatest imperial power at the time. We responded enthusiastically (if somewhat reluctantly at first) to join our European and Russian allies in snuffing out the great menace Hitler posed to the world. We exploded the first atomic bomb. When President Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon before the Soviets, we did it faster than anyone could have believed possible. Ultimately, we beat the Soviets into submission and thoroughly discredited the dogma of Soviet-style Marxist-Leninism. Simply stated, we inspired the world with our accomplishments (with the indispensible help of our long-standing allies). But could we do any of those things today?

I worry that today, my fellow Americans seemingly care only about the utterly irrelevant machinations of Britney Spears and her ilk, our sports teams, and so-called "reality shows" and true crime dramas than we do about the future of our country and our place in the world. Studies have shown that, No Child Left Behind notwithstanding, a shockingly large percentage of our children can't point out Iraq (or even some U.S. states) on a map, yet they can tell you all about their sports icons or the latest dish on Hannah Montana or HSM3 or the lastest season of Survivor. Our celebrity-entertainment industrial complex spews a constant stream of utterly vacuous garbage in every direction. Everyone wants to pursue the path of least resistance to riches and fame, be it in law, business, or something else, rather than the much-needed careers of scientist, engineer, or teacher. Our politicians refuse to deal with the hard questions, while our Social Security system stands on the brink of disaster, our men and women in uniform get killed in Iraq, and our economy goes into full-scale meltdown. All the while, other nations like China or India get poised to pass us by.

America needs to wake up and smell the coffee because we run the risk of being rendered irrelevant in the not-to-distant future. It won't happen for a while, but I say it will happen eventually if we don't reverse course, and quickly. As a nation, we have to decide what we want our legacy to be and what kind of country we want to leave to our children and their children, before someone else makes the decision for us.

I like this model, but I agree with other posters that Mr. Bisca's view seems to be quite narrow. There is a certain overly simplified quality, and he does seem to imply that making history equates to conquest, or at the very least meddling. but as one of the main themes of the twentieth century was the move away from imperialism and colonialism, it would seem the rules have changed.

perhaps he's instead referring to the way in which a society engages the world outside its own borders. still, the EU is in a way a fledgling enterprise getting itself sorted. despite it's growth from a Europe that dominated world events, the EU can be seen as an emerging force much like china or india, a society about to enter the first stage in Mr. Bisca's model.

It's a reasonable conceptual "lifcycle" framework, but just like with the stock market, it is not always possible at a given instant to tell where a civilization is in its lifecycle.

For example, in the US, the 80's started badly, just coming off stagflation, Carter, Afghanistan, Nixon, etc. Japan was kicking our butt economically, and the former Soviet Union was militarily ascendant. Just as we have now, there were cries of "end of the American century", and so on. Who knew we were just on the verge of a great 20 year run.

So just as it is practically impossible to pick a stock market low except in hindsight after many years, it's hard to say exactly where we are in this lifecycle.

Another point is looking at the EU is misleading. One has to look at a finer granularity. For example, the "new Europe" as opposed to "old Europe" has still not gone soft. For example, 10 years from now, if the US had to look for military allies, there is no reason that Poland might not send the largest contingent.

Great minds think alike, I guess. Here's another way of saying it - the "Europeanization of America." See Writing Frontier's piece on this at

http://writingfrontier.com/2008/07/27/the-europeanization-of-america/

"Could it be that Europe abandoned conquest only to succumb to comfort?" It could be true! And how unfortunate that such a well-educated, economically developed, and technologically advanced group of countries would collectively devote themselves to making life enjoyable for themselves instead of visiting death, destruction, and conquest on people elsewhere. How those Europeans have succumbed to the pleasures of a good life instead of wanting to interfere violently in other people's business is such a shame, isn't it? Imagine how many more wars there could be if only they hadn't succumbed!

Bisca writes as if there were just one way to "make history": conquest. That's rubbish.

Having spent centuries conquering and destroying one another, European countries are now intent on making another kind of history--the kind that supports the International Declaration of Human Rights for all its citizens, promotes tolerance of other cultures, economic growth, a vigorous welfare state, prevention of war and maintenance of international peace.

The EU's approach is far more enlightened than that taken by recent US governments.

I think there is a fine distinction to be brought out here. When the writer talks about "making history" it seems to be equated with conquest of others as it was for the old Muslim and European examples. This is where too often the American experience is either misunderstood or misrepresented. While there were certainly times in its history when America expanded by conquest, it does not accurately reflect the modern American concept of "making history." Most Americans now have NO interest in conquest of other countries, regardless of what the rest of the world may believe. We would love to do business with you and make a great profit, but not own or control other countries. Sure, just like every country we will try to have an influence that is beneficial to us, but that is a long ways from control and/or occupation. When both World Wars ended we let countries we controlled go back to local control. Even in Iraq the American people are anxious to get out, but would like to leave behind a stable country first (and hopefully friendly to us).

So while the premise of the article is interesting it falls down by making comparisons that don't quite match up.

Dear Mr. Bisca,

I would partly disagree to your opinion. It may be that there should be discussion on how to make the EU a stronger international player, but international strength is not only measured by military strength or agressiveness when it comes to disputes. That might have been an appropriate approach back in Ibn Khaldoun's times, but is to my opinion no longer valid. Take - for example - Americas craving for change - did the war in Iraq or the defense system in Europe enforce Americas standing in the world? I'd say the whole thing is more about public opinion and not about rockets.

Best regards from Germany

Michael Schmitz

P.S. It still is a very impressive article.