I used to be one, too, but I've been taught by events of this past decade or two. We should have just whacked Saddam rather than take out the whole country.
As in, "We don't care if you need to mistreat your people when they're fanatic head chopping followers of Mad Mo, but mess with the U.S. and Hell will be in your face! And if you mess with our friends, well Hells a-comin', too!!"
And then if it still happens, less talk, more rock! NEVER explain and negotiate, just do it.
That to me is the best, Teddy Roosevelt-esque, foreign policy we can have.
I suspect you were never a globalist the way I mean the term. I mean it as eradication of nationalism and moving toward a one-world central government. Graham is one of those, with the US being used to fund police actions wherever the global elites want them undertaken.
I dither between foreign intervention and non-intervention, but on a case by case basis. I think the general policy should be non-intervention. On Iraq, I supported Bush, but figured the wisdom (or stupidity) would not be clear for a few decades. Turns out the outcome became clear quicker. The US can't be trusted on long-term foreign policy, it shifts with the political winds. Iraq would be different if Obama had continued the process that Bush started but didn't finish.