Being a the world's leading nation and superpower and having that mean that we need to show up at every trouble spot that occurs, are not the same thing. The “world” has been singularly “ungrateful,” except perhaps for Israel for our “help.” I am just saying that we should take a leaf from Britain's Book when it comes to the use of our military around the world. They are where they are today largely because of “The British Empire” of the 19th Century. It still escapes me how being in Afghanistan is in any way necessary for our survival. Same goes for all of Africa, and to a great extent to Central and South America. We need to end this bull$hit about granting temporary sanctuary to people who live where largely due to their own bad choices for leadership, they find themselves with an oppressive government. Pretty much all Central American countries are $hit holes to one extent or another. Leave them to deal with it themselves. The idea that we have people here for 20 years having been granted “temporary residence” because of civil unrest or some sort of calamity is dumb. Ditto for Haiti. The question is, just how many “$hit people” can we add to our welfare rolls before we end up being just like the place they came from? Especially when they come here with the idea that they can go ahead and create their own $hit hole enclaves and not assimilate with the rest of us. There are something on the order of 600+ million “people” living in the Western Hemisphere, and all them outside the US and possibly Canada, live in “less than ideal circumstances!” Are we in any way obligated to bring a single one of them here? They need to be made to stay home and figure out for themselves how to govern and prosper, not come here and live off of the productive.
Now red herrings. The USA has not (and, AFAICS, never) intervened in every hot spot on the globe. It has, however, controlled vital strategic parts of the world so that ascendant tyrannies could not take them over. Some of the biggest retreats under leftist presidents include abandonment of the Panama Canal (now under the de facto control of Red China), dumping the Monroe Doctrine (thanks to Kerry; invites “the world” into the USA’s back door, but you seem to agree with him on this, not understanding why we had said doctrine in the first place) and Obama’s weakness (most likely deliberate) in the South China Sea (surrendering the Philippines and other locations to Red China).
As far as Afghanistan goes, if Iran were to take that over and thus ally with already-nuclear Pakistan, imagine how much greater their power would grow. If there is a bad situation there, it’s thanks to the leftist leaders, as noted again. (Bush’s altered stance towards Pakistan’s Musharraf showed him to be among the leftist leaders the US has had to endure.)
Defaulting to socialistic Wilsonian doctrine (his re-election slogan was “He Kept Us Out Of War”) in opposition to Washingtonian alertness will serve us badly as it has for well over a century. And as far as the British Empire goes, we see the fruits of their retreat; Churchill was pro-Empire, but Attlee was pro-retreat and poisoned his own country with socialism (particularly following the bad Soviet lead on abortion).