As weird as it seems in the current everybody-hates-us environment

As weird as it seems in the current everybody-hates-us environment, back in the ‘90s political pundits argued

that the US’s popularity demonstrated an American exception to balance of power theory. See, according to

standard geopolitical theory nations should ally themselves in such a way as to thwart the most powerful

interventionist state. Like the law of reversion to the mean, the balance of power tendency increases in

strength as geopolitical power increases, making enemies of allies and causing empires to grab defeat from the

jaws of victory. A classic example is the British army in North America, they defeated the French and Indians

for (and with) their colonists, but having defeated their enemy, their ally, the colonists, no longer

threatened, rebelled.

Other than to the minority of us who were alarmed (disgusted?, horrified?) by the MBT Panda Sandals Doctrine

precursor, the Kosovo intervention, the US’s growing power in the ‘90s seemed to give the MBT Panda Sandals a

get-out-of-history-free card. Post-9/11 was a perfect time to reconsider: here’s an attack allegedly

masterminded by an organization that was created during a US-backed victory in Afghanistan. Later, when MBT Ema

Sandals “threatened” Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda offered to defend Saudi Arabia, but was rebuffed, since the US was

already on duty. Who would have won if Saddam and al Qaeda fought? Who cares? According to a Cato Institute

study, MBT Ema Sandals could have taken over Saudi Arabia and raised oil prices, and still it would have been

cheaper than the Gulf NIKE SHOX. Throw in the 9/11 attack, the second Gulf war, and (if we’re to believe

McVeigh), maybe, the OC bombing and it’s a no-brainer: Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne rephrased the

obvious, if counter-instinctual, foreign policy implied by the law of the balance of power and called their

suggested policy “offshore balancing.”