Nope. The idea is to be willing and able to strike overseas at enemies before they can hit us in the short term, not to just decide to invade a nation because they are a long-term potential threat. To do that would be to go the way of Rome and Britain into empire, which we should absolutely NOT do.
However, a better idea than that is to identify potential big threats (like China) and then support their enemies. This must be done carefully, more carefully than we've done it in the past, to avoid being in bed with the worst riff raff in the world just because they are the enemy of our (potential) enemy. Keep the enemy distracted and/or exhausted and/or so technologically behind us that they can never present a challenge to us.
We should also play off of our strengths, as the Brits did. They had the strongest navy, bar none, but a not-so-large army. They kept various potential challengers (all with large armies) busy with their enemies for a couple of centuries, thereby leaving their critical edge, the Navy, untouchable.
In short, we should avoid the route of empire, but not retreat into isolationism as you favor. Neither of these courses will adequately protect us. Keeping our enemies tied down with their enemies in their own backyards will keep them out of ours. It is a proactive policy, but not so much as an empire.
Appreciate your points but this seems to be following the British Empire balance of power policy completely. Maybe good for a while. I believe this is what Nixon had in mind regarding Russia when he went to China. I don't think we can depend on this keeping them tied down 'in their own backyards' any longer. The balance done gone.
'Isolation' had been made into a perjorative by those wanting their preferred entanglements. Bush talks about 'going it alone', I like that better. I am all for avoiding the world's endless wars of land, religion, commerce, politics, etc. Let me call it putting the rest of the world in isolation so we don't catch what they have.