Originally Posted by NumberSix
Well, the United States’ #1 foreign policy is that no single country dominates any region. Whether it’s Iran in the Middle East, Russia in Eastern Europe/Eurasia or China in south east Asia. If you prevent any country from becoming a dominant regional power, you prevent them from becoming a world power like the United States.
No doubt. In a vacuum, I don't care about being the sole superpower, though I realize scaling back could create an opening for someone else to step up. That does complicate things, and arguably lends itself to the idea that we should
be the only straw the stirs the drink.
I get the concept that being heavy on interventions and putting our hands in cookie jars helps to perpetuate our "empire", but I'm not sold that it's the only (or even best) way to sustain our leadership role. Is the US objectively more trustworthy compared to leaving more power in the hands of even less humanitarianism-focused countries? Yes. We probably agree there. I just don't buy that that's one of our top priorities either.
Oftentimes the result of our interventions are a net negative. Not in every case, but the financial incentive of perpetual war is impossible to deny. Our leaders tend to err on the side of more war in any case where it's even debatable. Considering that a plurality of people view us as the top threat to world peace, I do think being involved in 8 interventions atm (and counting) is not a good thing.
A real debate can be had about whether or not the pros of our "world policemen" role actually net balance out the cons, but it would be nice if we practiced some
of what we preached when it comes to human rights issues. Higher standards in terms of who we choose to back. Our approach is Machiavellian and hypocritical, to be kind.