Excellent article. Regarding the legacy of British colonialism, may I suggest you consider these two maps? Their similarity is striking (look at Africa) and underscores the points you make.

Regarding the ineffectiveness of current international organizations (UN, EU) in opposing the current totalitarian threat, I propose:

(a) That NATO be reconstituted to a global follow-on organization—call it the World Democratic Alliance (WDA)—whose mission is to defend and promote democracy.

(b) The WDA's solicited membership should roughly correspond to the green nations in the Freedom House map.

(c) The headquarters of the WDA should be in India, the world's most populous democracy, preferably in a large coastal city such as Mumbai. India is located amidst the Islamic world, and borders China, the two remaining totalitarian adversaries, so headquartering there announces the WDA's purpose. Also, headquartering in India rebuts the charge that the WDA is a Euro-American colonial enterprise.

(d) When seeking international sanction for military actions, the WDA, because of the commonality of interest, will be a more meaningful and effective arena than the UN.

(e) The WDA's mission should be foremost military, but it should also be a venue to create alternatives to the UN's humanitarian programs; WHO, UNICEF, etc. These agencies would surely benefit from the existence of an alternative avenue for Western humanitarian efforts.

(f) Finally, the WDA would be a standard that the captive populations of dictatorial nations would aspire to and find a champion in. The existence of such an alliance would make these populations restive, and the dictator's task more difficult.

I noted in your, as usual, well-written article, the absence of any mention of two nations in Southeast Asia that were formerly British colonies. As recently as only a couple of weeks ago, Lee Kuan Yew, the erstwhile PM and founding father of Singapore, declared that there were two main reasons that have made affluent and cosmopolitan Singapore what it is today: the smooth succession of their leaders chosen for their integrity and the use of the English language. Today, Malaysian students in the various institutions of higher learning abroad in mainly English speaking countries constitute a high percentage of foreign students there. And recently, I had an interesting conversation with a tourist from Saudi Arabia in a shopping complex here that started off with superficial matters regarding places of interest for a tourist to visit and ended with Islam. Since his knowledge of the Malay language was just as good, or as bad, as my Arabic our discourse would not have been possible at all (save perhaps in sign language)if neither of us knew or spoke English.

Ten years ago, I spent a month in England as part of a study-abroad program in graduate school. On one of my last days there, I stood knee-deep in the English Channel at Dover, eating fish and chips while a busker nearby performed "Wonderwall" (this was the peak of the Oasis era). In my mind, I saw Arthur's Romano-British knights fending off Saxons on the ground, and Spitfires dogfighting with Messerschmits in the air. Two days later, at Westminster, I stood at the graves of Kipling, Dickens, and Sir Laurence Olivier (they all touch), and then knelt to kiss Chaucer's headstone.

Mr. Hitchens has here expressed everything in which I was truly rejoicing, and in which I truly believe. Mankind leans toward Empire, but also leans away from totalitarianism; it may seem hard to reconcile that, but U.S. history and UK history speak to it—as does Roman history, and our nations both owe volumes to Rome (especially Britain; ask the folks in Bath, whose city crest still features Aquae Sulis, the Roman/Celtic water goddess). What I think is interesting—what I think we're still waiting for Act III on—is that American empire has mostly manifested as American business. Hitchens addresses the spread of English; the two most recogized words on this entire planet are "OK" and "Coca-Cola." Have an empire and a smile!

Overall, very fine work. Although I have disagreements with your thoughts on Christianity, this article touched upon something I've been thinking of, in roughly the same lines. Also that which was mentioned by a responder to your article, Mr. Jason Sparks, who included a sort of "branch" in the "family" tree, if you will, regarding the Roman Republic/Empire.

I think a great argument can be made for a "recipe" to create the best type of civilization for a private citizen to live in. In a strong sense, your "Anglosphere" may prove it. This may involve a common (at least fairly common) language. The rule of law and judicious use of law enforcement and justice. Keeping as much of government out of private citizen lives, however, at the same time keeping the private citizen involved in the life of government. The aggressive use of diplomacy and armed forces for the obvious protection of the interior where the private citizens live and work. Plainly, making it safe for private citizens to go about their business with as little interference as possible from bandits, government regulators, and tax collectors. Many other things are involved that can be quibbled over, such as the role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in personal discipline, the role of public education in reinforcing Republicanism and the idea of sovreignty. I'm sure we could go on and on.

But "Anglosphere" and Mr. Stark made me touch upon other concepts and ideas too. The Romans were, in many ways, the first to perfect this type of model, if I may. After the Roman West fell, the rapid decline of Europe followed, although we may argue the point of how far it declined. As Britain rose, then too the U.S., to me anyway, it becomes clear that these very similar institutions, traditions, disciplines, and values are what helps to create this very successful civilizational model. Now, with political correctness taking hold as almost policy, it seems "racist" to speak of such things. But truth, being only the truth, is blind to racism. It is long past time to cast off political correctness that damns us from speaking the truth. The truth is, "our" civilization, for all the sins committed, is the best and is worth a proper vigorous and aggressive defense.

And I think what our civilization is can be described in a sense by what it can be: an overarching "Anglosphere." If, in the future, this proves to take hold—a stronger, deeper alliance of an "Anglo-Saxon" society, traditions that stretch back into Roman tradition, institutions and values that came from Rome and were used as a foundation and built upon, and also, if I may, keep our Judeo-Christian heritage that helps build our personal discipline and keep as straight as possible our moral compass—we may see in the future what Rome could have become. Whereas Rome, Britain, and the U.S. were the dominant superpowers, this overarching "Anglosphere" may become the first global powerhouse to reach "supremacy" status.

Whoa! Most of the valuable things that the Anglosphere countries have in common, they share with many other nations, such as the Dutch, the Danes, the Belgians, and (by and large) the Germans and Italians.

After World War Two, we had a common understanding of ourselves as part of "the West" . . . a civilization defined by pluralism, humanity, and democracy rather than by such narrow issues as language, descent, or the prevalence (real or imagined) of Lockean contractualism. We need to return to that broader conception pronto!

Having said which, it is a pleasure to note the arrival of India in the leading councils of the democratic world. Hopefully, Brazil will soon join it there.