Well, the title is abhorrent and curiously self-deluded. Just consider the the wars against native Indians, south American tribes, holocaust, and all those genocidal wars throughout (and ongoing in fact) the times. Who is safer and richer? and would we really be so much worse off if there was no Holocaust (for instance) ?<p>First, the article navigates apologetically into saying that the ends justify the means, and second, that US goals are somewhat altruistic (in one way or another the "trickling down of benefits" is at work regardless whether planned or not). With US gone as a "globocop" the world will be worse off is what the author really wanted to say (which is self-serving conclusion, and was probably argued 100's of times by each dominant "state-power/kingdom/city-state/tribe" finding itself at the down turn of a cycle since the dawn of humanity).<p>However, such conclusion on its own is of no significance (no lessons learned for the future and no added value to humanity by stating that). I also find it childishly naive and romantic to conclude that state has as its biggest concern its citizens. The history of humanity (highlighted by the US history itself) is so clear about the fallacy of such view (which itself sits solid on the laws of nature). Seldom and then only for a short time (relative to nation-state life cycle) the interests of citizens and states are aligned.<p>I simply reject the premise and conclusion of the entire piece, and it is sad that WP would publish this ideological drivel.