Aside from the fact that the author doesn't really define precisely what he means by "global domination" (unless I missed it in my brief perusal of the article), I cannot agree with much of his assessment. For example, he seems to think that the U.S. is simply forcing themselves upon their European allies by keeping bases in so many of their countries, when it reality these countries have wanted our bases so that they do not have to defend themselves alone but can count on American military power to help defend them. And, despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia is still up to its old tricks and cannot be trusted no matter how much they seem to be cozying up to France and Germany, so even these two countries aren't exactly pleading for us to remove our bases from Europe. But the main thing is that, to stick with the current example, if we really have been all about "global domination," there wouldn't even be a France or Germany now. We would have made them U.S. possessions following WW2. As it stands, however, we've only asked for enough land to bury our dead after liberating France and helping to establish Germany as an economic powerhouse, along with enough land for bases not only to protect our own interests as their allies but also to protect them.

The point is that our history belies such an accusation, and I can see no good evidence that things are different now. As for the article, is seems to me quite a bit of supposition without real, concrete evidence.