Permanent US hegemony is dystopian in the sense that man would ultimately lose choice of the system within which he lived. The US, evidently lacking capability for real reform from within, is necessarily dependent on reform from without, i.e., that outside forces would curb the US and thereby maintain alternative models of society -- places we could emigrate to in search of freedom like our forebears did in coming here. I was encouraged by Brzezinski's recent article describing Bush as a practitioner of "suicidal statecraft" which Toynbee had identified as the main cause of imperial failure. So, Brzezinski seems to be agreeing with you, Sabri, and, in that limited sense, maybe Bush's incompetence and excessiveness may be a blessing in disguise. (Let me know if you haven't seen the Brzezinski article, and I'll post it.)
The unfortunate thing about this form of transition to a future, more pluralistic world (should it occur) is that it establishes patterns of competition rather than collaboration with countries such as China and Russia. It would have been wiser for the US at the outset to have acknowledged the infeasibility of permanent domination and used its waning power to encourage systems of transnational governance and collaboration. Our planet is shrinking, common problems like finite energy, global warming, and pollution are going to be key and the old model of competing states seems unsuited for these challenges. Peter Hollings Sabri: "if by system what is meant is the existing international order and the US hegemony over it, then that seems quite likely"
