the above quote (the citation of which began the thread) is not an analysis.
among other problems, it demonstrates a simple-minded view of france, of international politics, of history and of the americans.
the first claim has been effectively debunked.
it was false from the outset, evidently so for anyone who looked. but for those who did not, it must be difficult to watch what has been happening to the bush rationale for war--it has been dismantled step by step. a new element in this process will be found in the senate's final 911 commission report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/12panel.html
and on the uk side another element:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/...259391,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...259148,00.html
as for the second:
regarding the international position of france, i agree in general with onetime.
and i think that the american right has nothing of interest to say about the eu because they cannot get out of thier reliance on nation-states as the starting point for thinking.
regarding the history of "imperial powers":
underpinning: either the colonial order is still operational, in which case it follows that the americans are a colonial power. if that is true, then maybe the position would make sense, but not in the way the poster would imagine.
or:
if the colonial order is not still relevant, the logic of claim creates problems--for example, it is almost impossible to move from it to any coherent analysis of neo-colonialism (colonialism vs. neo-colonialilsm: direct territorial domination replaced by indirect domination of economies, currencies, etc.--the symbolic shift is easy to locate---1960---neocolonialism entails a very different kind of power, a diffusion, a privatization--the old order is irrelevant analytically within it, an object of nostalgia for a simpler world---and right history is nothing other than nostalgia for simpler times.....)
the colonial system as reference point somehow persists in conservative diplomatic history, which is the most methodologically backward of genres. i would be happy to defend this position.
another problem with the quote: it arbitrarily attributes subjectivity to nation-states. which is ridiculous.
but this kind of move does underpin conservative pseudo-analysis, in that it enables even more ridiculous language to be imported--that of morality, for example.
on this question, i agree with art.
for that matter, any neocon would agree too. they have in the main read at least the military sections of machiavelli. the neocons in power are obviously seduced by a cliffnotes understanding of machiavelli. this kind of thin is central to conservative "realism" in politics.
i dont think anyone actually believes that morality and realpolitik have any contact with each other.