Fine. You can advocate "non-interventionism." No harm, since as the world's one true conservative, you'll never have to deal with the consequences.
But, certainly, in theory (thank God) you would advocate terminating America's single largest and most costly foreign intervention, and one of the longest lived. Right?
It's not much talked about, but certainly our naval policing of the global sea lanes is our greatest foreign intervention. Heck, we built, and continuously maintain, an entire naval fleet, just for the purpose of patrolling only one of the most crucial regions: the Persian Gulf.
Of course if we ceased this intervention, there is at least a fair chance, if not a strong probability, that some regional squabble gone out control would cut off a significant fraction of global oil supplies, sparking a global depression, and eating up the billions of dollars we had been saving annually on maintenance of the Fifth Fleet in a matter of weeks.
But that's O.K. because we'd be ideologically pure non-interventionists. Right?
Of course the examples could be multiplied endlessly. For instance we intervened early in the Bush presidency when Pakistan and India were on the verge of war. We strongly pressured both to sit down and talk. But it would have been better, apparently, to mind our business and risk nuclear war.
By the same token we should end our interventions in Pakistan on principle, even though they have proven, at least by readily discernible increments, successful in turning the Pakistani government and armed forces against Islamists they were previously sponsoring and arming. Granted the result may be nuclear arms falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, but better that than compromising the non-interventionist principle. Right?
WOW! You are on a roll tonight! Thanks for the great job!
Your doomsday scenario contradicts basic economics. The oil market is a world market. Oil is a fungible good hence it is impossible to "cut it off" especially in a "regional squabble" that would not affect our supplies in Alaska and elsewhere. Even Bin Laden said, we can't "eat it." The theory that we had the navy to "control" every oil field in the world is a canard. Once it flows into the world market, it is available to everyone.
You're really reaching here. There is evidence that our benighted little brown brothers wouldn't have talked without the intervention of their benevolent, all-seeing papa America. In any case, both India and Pakistan first developed their nuclear weapons DESPITE the world policing policy you advocate and the active involvement of the U.S. in that region. Now....that's quite indictment of such a policy, isn't it?
History tells us that the only way to contain Islam, which is an inherently aggresive force, is by military force. The Portuguese, by flanking Islam on the east and gaining control of trade in the waters between India and Africa, set a limit to the expansion of the Muslim Powers. Superior ships, manned by skill seamen, using better cannon allowed tiny Portugal to became a leading naval power in the East. The annexation of Portugal by Spain put an end to this, for the Spanish were preoccupied in the Americas and in the Netherlands. But they were succeeded by the Dutch, who in turn were rivaled by the English and French. But Portugal,the Netherlands, Britain and France, as well as the Spanish presence in the Phillipines kept their colonies until the last century. During the past fifty years we have taken on their role. We made impossible the continuation of these empires after WWII, thinking to open the world to our trade. Unfortunately this has resulted in the enrichment of the Muslim states and we are now paying the price of feeding a tiger.