Dan Drezner writes something stupid:
Commenting on the decreasing frequency of warfare, he writes:
U.S. hegemony important to the reduction of conflict in two ways. First, U.S. power can act as a powerful if imperfect constraint on pairs of enduring rivals (Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan) that contemplate war on a regular basis. It can't stop every conflict, but it can blunt a lot ofthem. Second, and more important to Easterbrook's thesis, U.S. supremacy in conventional military affairs prevents other middle-range states -- China, Russia, India, Great Britain, France, etc. -- from challenging the U.S. or each other in a war. It would be suicide for anyone to fight a war with the U.S., and if any of these countries waged a war with each other, the prospect of U.S. intervention would be equally daunting.
Of course, the US cannot even interfere in Darfur, where a genocide is going on, or in North Korea, which has directly challenged the US. The idea that it would interefere in a war between "China, Russia, India, Great Britain, France" is plainly ridiculous. Notice the evidence-less presentation: thats what happens when one mindlessly applies theories without stopping to consider whether they apply.