Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.
I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.
I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.
We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.
As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.