I think it is superficial and full of hyperbole, but it captures the disillusionment that Americans felt after the war, a war that did not end war but broke the peace Fast forward to our modern disillusionment at large and it fits how America might prefer to have left well enough alone and lived on in splendid isolation. Of course we adore discussing alternate outcomes to such sweeping events as the Great War. It is why many of us are here.
Better might be the subjective relativism that crashes this debate but I know it would be different, different enough to be a utopia, I fear not, but then I fear Thomas More's Utopia, I am in the camp that sees it as Dystopian satire. We will still have war, famine, deprivation and disaster, suffering simply does not eclipse by vanquishing Versailles. But i agree that a stalemated peace has more potential to discredit warfare than the Victor's Peace did. That is not an excuse for Nazi Germany but one sees its roots seeded in how badly the peace was built. Europe likely needed to totter along broken rather than affirm its notions that all was well, so did America spoil things? I think the article submits that we did. A kernel of truth lies in there, the USA today is at war with the world in a vain attempt to impose security, that appears to be how we believe we won, intervene and impose ourselves, redraw maps and change the names, then go home and wring our hands, wash and repeat. Is this the legacy the article thinks is avoided by simply letting Europe bleed itself to an ignoble end of war? I think the author's notion is going to sound more and more like the sentiment once this century ends.