Thanks.

I am a moderate "isolationist" when it comes to foreign policy. When I read these things I think when you go out and do things, like try to give Iraq a more democratic gov't, some bad consequences inevitably end up happening, making policing the world a thankless job. To the extent we have to intervene militarily abroad, I accept the negative consequences. But I never understood the basic premise of why we have to get involved militarily. It seems like there must be some other way of helping rather than bombing, deploying troops, or arming foreign troops with questionable records.

It sounds simplistic, but the Founders had this idea of the US being protected by citizens keeping weapons in their homes, and I think that should be our main defense. We certainly need a standing military to detect and respond to missile attacks, but I don't think we need to be using those missiles to attack individual criminal suspects aboard. It's so tempting. The foreign gov't can deny involvement. A high ranking US official can review the intelligence and act as judge and jury, and we can kill someone who probably has committed murders and is planning more. I actually think the military officers and civilian leaders forget that this is the way world worked before rule of law, and acting this way is a step backward.

Your article does a good job making me think "US wants person X not to run country Y, but I just want America to be left alone and live life, creating things that people love in exchange for money." Really, how many Americans care who's in charge of Syria? People will say they care about the effects of the oil, but I say stuff happens in the market with the supply and demand curves for all kinds of things moving around, and market participants respond, often without even realizing it. If oil gets expensive, people will find a way to get people their energy and plastic materials some other way. I cannot be convinced that US interests require a trillion dollar (if you count all things related to military) standing army.

So I agree and look forward to Part 2.

Great article, Robert. I may disagree on a few details, but overall found it a fair assessment of global events.

I posted the title on RT; hope you don't mind. Some Americans give Putin a really bad knocking; one he doesn't deserve. I think it is hard for Americans to give up that "We're the best in the world because the Soviet Union collapsed and we didn't."
They haven't realized a new nation, a phoenix perhaps, has arisen in its place. A good nation.