I think it relates, also, to how much ‘leadership’ (or ‘dominance’, or ‘imperialistic) we want to have in the world.
Mind our own borders, make no treaties that require us to use force on the behalf of other nations, have a sane policy regarding trade and recognition of other nations and we would (outside of Islam and the Chinese who will always consider themselves to the the rightful number one superpower, but who can nearly always act rationally since doing so is in their lang term self interest) and we would have very few, and easily identifiable and defeat able enemies.
If we want to be the world’s main superpower, then we will always have enemies.
If we want to be the world’s main superpower, then we will always have enemies.
Do you think the Russians would be better? The Chinese? Either there will be a dominant power or their will not.
A world without a dominant power is unstable, as we learned from WWI and WWII. The British had been dominant. Then they succumbed to the siren call of disarmament.
The U.S. grew and succeeded under the wings of British enforcement of freedom of the seas, and a world order of sorts.
Just as South Korea, Europe, and China have flourished under a pax Americana.