Details, Details

The military has a term called "defeat in detail." That happens when a superior force is defeated by a smaller one that attacks each piece of the larger army (or navy, or air force) one by one. Washington used the tactic in crossing the Delaware to attack Trenton and then, a few days later, to throw back another British force at Trenton. Lee defeated union forces on several occasions by concentrating his troops against one part of the Northern army before it could join with the rest.

Of course, to be defeated in detail, the more powerful force has to assist its weaker opponent by dispersing itself; when Lee came up against Grant--one of the most underrated generals in history--he found that the Union forces not only remained concentrated and but used their superior numbers and power to pound his army to defeat.

The United States now finds itself in peril of being defeated in detail, not by a single army but by opponents who have no common program beyond opposing America. Having entered Afghanistan (a justified conflict), we then skipped to divide our forces in the unnecessary and thoroughly dumb invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, two nations who really do pose a threat to the interests of the United States, its friends and allies--North Korea and Iran--were given several years to go on their merry way toward developing nuclear weapons while the administration (bewitched by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein) turned a blind eye. Now we are faced with challenges from both of those states, and there seems to be little (apart, perhaps, from what would be a monumentally ill-advised pre-emptive strike on North Korea's ballistic missile as it sits on its launching pad) that we can do to deflect their nuclear ambitions. (There are sign that the Iranians may be willing to discuss nuclear issues, but I fear that it will prove too late; the foolishness of the Bush administration and the irrationality of the people who control Iran are all too likely to prove a combustible mixture.)

As if that weren't enough, we also face antagonism from Hugo Chavez, the caudillo of Venezuela, who is using his country's wealth to give vent to Latin America's long pent-up anger at its northern overlord.

Not to mention the peaceful economic challenges posed by China, India, the European Union and other competitors in the global economy.

The threats posed in each of these theatres is different both in kind and seriousness, but their cumulative effect is clear. To put it simply, you don't hear much about the world's only superpower anymore. Instead, the United States often resembles the "pitiful, helpless giant" of 60's revolutionary mythology.

We might take a leaf out of the British playbook. If you study the history of the British Empire, you will perhaps be struck by the parsimoniousness of most of its ventures. The men in London (realizing how small the mother country really was) were sparing in their use of resources to preserve, much less expand, British influence. This was a constant source of frustration to the more boisterous elements of the establishment, but it was one of the secrets to British success.