What the good Ms Myles' example primarily illustrates, apparently unbeknownst to her, is that Islamic societies have been a pain in America's neck for at least 210 years.

As for America "impos[ing] itself as 'the standard of the world'", no imposition was necessary; we did what we do best, and the rest of the world did what they felt would be best.
The results speak for themselves: At the beginning of the 21st century, no sane and knowledgeable person would contest that the US are the world's premier military, economic, and social power.
Many people don't like it, but it's acknowledged that America, and those most like her around the world, have risen to the top, and are in no danger of being overtaken by any alternative way of organizing society.

[T]he world will become an empire of liberty under the leadership of the United States...

And what an unHoly shame that would be, eh ?

If Ms Myles objects to everyone in the world enjoying liberty, then by her own standards, she can morally and legally be led out of her classroom and publicly executed; if she objects to America leading it, what's she doing in the US ?

If she isn't a parasitical hypocrite, she'd want to strengthen the economy and society of some other world-leading nation, correct ?

All true, but what nearly all Americans fail to realize is that the chastisement of the Dey of Algiers and others had no permanent effect.

The US did NOT keep a powerful naval force in the Mediterranean, and predation on merchant crews continued, slightly abated, until our jolly tars were permanently saved by -- gasp! -- the French.

Harry:

What you don't understand, mostly because of your bizarre Coolidge obsession, is that America has never maintained its military between wars.

The world changes very slowly indeed. The Barbary pirates were our first encounter with Islam and Iraq won't be our last.

Ms. Myles like other good little academic girls thinks that she invented sex and morality and discovered evil. It shows the real flaw in an education system that no longer inculcates scripture or the greek and roman classics.

No, the way it's going, the last (read: final) encounter with Islam will be the Black Glass Scenario.

And irony of ironies, that scenario is much more likely with an anti-war Kerry victory in November than it will be with a pro-war Bush victory.

ray:

The War on Terror is going much more like the last stage of the Cold War than the end of WWII. They're reforming so fast there'll be no need for final battles.

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad, By Andrew G. Bostom FrontPageMagazine.com, September 29, 2004:

They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries.

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them.

Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded.

The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper.

He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.”

OK. So what has changed?

True up until 1921, Orrin, when the Democrats voted and appropriated money to maintain a 'fleet second to none.'

In an insane policy of penny-pinching, the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover administrations canceled that wise decision, forgetting the saying that 'there is nothing more expensive than the second-best navy.'

Instead, Coolidge made a pact with the French not to fight wars any more, which the French took pretty seriously.

In 1945, we again reduced the military, but Truman reversed the policy, and we have not been outgunned since. Outgeneraled, yes.

Yes, after WWI we built down. Unfortunately Trumnan failed to finish WWII so we stayed heavily armed until the end of the Cold War, though both Ike and Nixon/Ford/Carter did reduce. After the Cold War we reduced troop levels and whatnot significantly (military spending fell from 6% of GDP to 3% accounting for the entire balanced budget), and are closing bases even now. as you point out, we have nowhere newar the infantry we'd require if there were a plausible enemy anywhere. It's just how democracies work--no war, no military.

Britain wasn't a democracy in, say, 1900?

Sure, a democracy at war.

OK, 1897

Yes, they'd gotten a bit down at the heels, thus Jackie Fischer's big ship-building campaign in the run up to war with Germany.

Well, no. When Fisher took over, the Royal Navy was a big as the next two navies put together -- which had been British strategic policy all though the 19th century.

What Fisher did was to reset the contest to zero for everyone in order to cope with new technology.

Britain never had the margin of superiority in the Fisher era that it did earlier

Yes, the outmoded navy of the world's greatest seapower needed updating--happens in democracies.