Comment by pfdietz 3 days ago
Some would dispute the "downward" part there.
Not trying to be the world's policeman would allow tremendous downsizing of the military and its associated expense.
Decoupling and isolation is a very rational response if nuclear proliferation is going to accelerate, in order to avoid having entangling alliances pull the country into a nuclear equivalent of the first World War.
Strategic motivation? If one assumes the US is going to be globally involved, yes, but that's begging the question.
Economic motivation? Not so much now, with the US being a dominant oil producer, and with petroleum itself losing importance. Even then, it's questionable if this could justify the full cost of the US military.
I think the original motivation was two fold: it was a combination of some sort of moral obligation to defend the "free world" from authoritarians, and (after WW2) a desire to keep small countries (and recent WW2 enemies) from deciding their only option for defense was their own nuclear deterrent.
I don't see much evidence that's the US wants to defend the world from authoritarians. Some of their closest allies are authoritarian countries.
Maybe. They seem to actually like expansionist authoritarians now. Evidence being the Russia Ukraine peace effort.
Mostly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#US_invasion_and_Is...
Apparently the invasion was Oct 2001 and Bin Laden hiked over into Pakistan in Dec 2001
"World's policeman", that's what you tell little kids America was doing. America didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan for world peace. There were strong economic and strategic motives behind those invasions.
At the same time, soft power is also vanishing.