[DoughtyOne]

One has only to think about what happened in the Iraq region when the U. S. pulled out prematurely.

Think global. That is what the world is without a very strong presence from the U. S.

This led to Russia filling the void. It led to ISIS. It led to destabilization of the whole region.

The point is not to engage everywhere. The point is to be capable of it, and let folks know we won’t put up with nonsense.

This world is already in trouble because of signaled U. S. contraction.

China is now adventurous. Russia is adventurous.

Israel is under new pressure. The region around it is on fire.

Folks, if it isn’t us formulating global policy, it will be others. Russia? China? Is this registering?

[Theoria]

A global policy must understand our limitations and what is our best interest. Kicking the hornets nest in the ME was not in our interest. Funding communist china's adventurism via free trade was not in our long term interest, etc.

The vast amounts in blood and treasure wasted abroad in contrast to the derelict physical infrastructure here and lost social investment brings up the issues again and again.

[Ohioan]

You should distinguish between organizing a balance of power—what worked for Britain for generations—and what never worked for Britain, i.e. meddling with other people’s cultural heritages.