Balance of power was supposed to apply to the continental powers, not to Great Britain. Great Britain always knew that to preserve its hegemony, it must prevent the Continent from uniting. To prevent the Continent from uniting, it was England's strategy to manipulate the European situation so as to always keep opposing blocs in balance there, using the other bloc to attack by land whichever bloc might threaten England by sea, and supporting the weaker of the sides in a land war when necessary. When strong opposing forces are kept in delicate balance, relatively tiny effort is needed to effect control; this leverage effect multiplies a power's influence on a situation far beyond its forces in the field. In the same way, a perfectly balanced telescope weighing tons can be
easily and precisely moved at will by the astronomer's bare hand.

We did the same in the recent Gulf War between Iran and Iraq. Balance of Power was why we left a declawed but otherwise intact Saddam in charge locally in 1991.

World War I was caused by a breakdown in the balance of power -- England's "problem of Europe" then being how to make Germany strong enough to protect itself and France from Russia, yet keep it too weak to threaten Belgium.

In the post-cold-war era, we have decided we are strong enough not to be concerned with efficient use of power. The very extravagance of the resources we expend for very small or even negative gain is itself a form of "shock and awe" that, we feel, so thoroughly convinces our opponents of our reckless self-confidence, that they race to bow and accept our superiority lest we include them in the scope of our largesse.

Giovanni