if globalization is itself a hedge against war in the globalized world, then why focus on keeping potential partners weak? Why not encourage as many players as possible?

this was partly addressed recently in the cover stories of newsweek and businessweek: "The price the Bush Administration is paying for its failed diplomacy is high, and it promises to rise even further. A world divided between multilateral economic and unilateral security policies is an uncertain and risky place. It is not likely to encourage economic growth or prosperity. The Administration risks turning what was once trumpeted as the American Century into the Anti-American Century."

hence i think charges of arrogance stick more than imperialism: "To tell your allies that your word as a nation is not good--that agreements won't mean what you said they meant if you find it convenient to pretend otherwise--is extremely dangerous. It changes international relations from a search for mutual benefit into a struggle for power, and may have very bad implications for the long run."