I suspect you were never a globalist the way I mean the term. I mean it as eradication of nationalism and moving toward a one-world central government. Graham is one of those, with the US being used to fund police actions wherever the global elites want them undertaken.
I dither between foreign intervention and non-intervention, but on a case by case basis. I think the general policy should be non-intervention. On Iraq, I supported Bush, but figured the wisdom (or stupidity) would not be clear for a few decades. Turns out the outcome became clear quicker. The US can't be trusted on long-term foreign policy, it shifts with the political winds. Iraq would be different if Obama had continued the process that Bush started but didn't finish.
The test should be simple: Only when strategic national interests are involved and threatened.
Obama and Hillary framed our intervention in Libya as humanitarian preventing the slaughter of tens of thousands. The reality was that Gaddafi was trying to staunch the spillover of the Arab Spring and crush the MB. We sided with the MB as we did in Egypt. More people have died than if we had not intervened at all.
And the US was being pressured by Europe to intervene in Libya to protect their oil interests and staunch the flood of refugees into Lampedusa who then entered mainland Europe. Combined with the debacle in Syria, we have now millions of Muslims entering from North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. The impact can take down the EU and alter the demographics of Europe forever. And the US will be affected as well. Actions and inaction have consequences. They will play out over decades.