"you should discuss the merits of his observations."
I would if I could find any..If you have please elucidate..
Well, it seems pretty clear to me. America is powerful but doesn't have an empire. Britian was trying to rule India, Hong Kong, Africa, etc. America doesn't have to worry about the native populations of foriegn lands.
Essentially, the conclusion the article is wrong.
Let me make this first grade simple for you: The article is stupid because it draws incorrect conclusions from various facts. The logical fallacy most important in this article is knows as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". The author is commiting the fallacy when he is assuming that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other. For example:
"...Several interrelated reasons - among them the grisly fact that England had lost virtually an entire generation of future leaders in the trenches of Europe. But another important cause was the waning of confidence on the part of liberal British elites, whose pacifism evolved into anti-patriotism..."
The fallacy in the article is that the British Empire failed because of 'liberal elites' and WWI. That's not correct. The British Empire fell because because of the percentage of population of rulers to the ruled and the vast differences in culture and heritage between rulers and ruled. The British, (rightly), lost the will to be rulers and gave up their Empire. The Indians did not want to be a part of it. The Afrikaaners did not want to be a part of it. That is a fundamental difference between their Empire and the American Experiment. Indians in the days of the Raj were never Britons. An American citizen of Indian descent in New York will proudly declare his citizenship.
You know, maybe my before coffee first post wasn't that clear; but maybe you just didn't understand it. Is this post clear enough for you, sparky?