LOL. But you did nitpick. My list wasn't intended to be in order of importance. And I agree with you . . . to a point.
Yes, our national security SHOULD be the primary, overwhelming reason why we use force . . . but one has to be forward-looking enough to realize when the continued "bad habits" of another sovereign nation will eventually effect us. Saudi Arabia for example. I don't know when the "radicalization" of Islam started being taught in the Saudi and Saudi-connected schools but we should've stepped to the plate as soon as we noticed it. I suspect it probably became widespread during the Carter Administration . . . but it's immaterial when it started. We should've seen how it would affect us and we should've done something about it.
But, then, that's from 20/20 hindsight.
But just because threats to our citizenry and sovereignty are the primary reasons for war, that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge all the other good things accomplished because of our military action. God knows our enemies, both domestic and foreign, will point out EVERY minute item that might be wrong about our action.
The problem with that type of policy is that sometimes there are greater dangers present than someone's "bad habits." For example we had to play nice nice with Iraq during the Cold War and the Iran/Iraq War. To follow a foreign policy based on enforcing human rights ect will end just as it did when Jimmy Carter put it into practice - failure and accusations of hypocrisy. A more appropriate manner in dealing with bad habits is the "speak softly but carry a big stick" diplomacy route.
Smedley Butler circa 1930
After fighting the banana wars.
Marines have a tendency to bitch like this.