"...but it's not an AMERICAN-designed map nor something American foreign policy is actively trying to create. "

you do not know this, you are assuming that the US is not planning this ... many assumed Afghanistan and Iraq were about 911 ... they were wrong

and as for "a universal feature of reactionary Turkish nationalist web postings"

funny :)

I think there's a couple things at play here.

1) There is more media attention on things America does than things any other nation in the world does. The world becomes more aware of destructive foreign (and domestic) policies that are done by the US than those of other countries. But other countries do destructive things, they just don't get as much attention in the media. I think it's good that there is at least some media attention on the bad things that America is doing, but warn that such attention in no way means that equally or even greater atrocities aren't being committed by many countries in many different places.

To give another example, Turkey started getting much more media attention, and "suddenly" everyone's hearing about the Armenians, Kurds, and other minorities with whom Turkey doesn't get along. The more media attention that Turkey gets, the "greater" the sense will be that Turkey is a big horrible country that kills lots of people, *regardless* of the actual numbers or the actual extent of the violence. All due to the amount of media coverage.

2) There's an economy of scale at play here. The war in Chechnya has had a greater negative impact on a greater percentage of Chechnyans than any war America has initiated has had, but Chechnya "seems" small, and few people have heard of it. Many are still not aware that over half the population of East Timor and basically the infrastructure of the entire island was wiped out by the Indonesian government, a calamity with a considerably higher casualty rate (percentage of the populace) than any war the U.S. has been involved in. Wars in Africa are effectively NEVER reported, but if you dig into the history of Chad, the Congo, Sudan, South Africa... the list goes on.

My point is, the U.S. can certainly not claim a monopoly share of the destruction being razed on the planet, even if it has the largest military with which to destroy things. It's actions, however, are the best documented.

You mention "hegemony." Perhaps you meant "control." Because if you mean "hegemony," as in Gramsci's concept of hegemony, then that implies that other countries are consenting to this power relation.