acting like american imperialism and strict isolationism are the only alternatives is a false dichotomy. if by 'overall success' you mean the strengthening of american hegemony in the world, to the benefit of its ruling class, i'd certainly agree (even though one could make valid arguments about how a less militaristic and more mutually beneficial approach could have been more successful in doing so) - but to characterise america's net influence on the world since ww2 as 'undoubtedly positive' requires some insanely thick, neocon-tinted glasses, and has to be a uniquely jingoistic perspective.

america has committed (and facilitated) unspeakable crimes and violations of international law in those decades, to a degree that not a single other country has in that period. in that regard, they have proven themselves 'worthy' successors to the british empire.

This post was edited by fender on Jul 7 2020 12:44pm

I say isolationist because I don't know a more appropriate word. What I mean is an America content to let other powers dominate their regions at the detriment of our own country, those countries, and the world as a whole. It would be an America that lets the Chinese and Soviet backed North take South Korea, lets Saddam take Kuwait, lets nations in the Middle East invade other nations without American forces going in, lets Iran harass tankers in the seas without military retaliation, etc etc.

Our security guarantees and presence in many countries acts to ensure peace and prosperity. Without that traditional American policy, the world would be in a much darker place. We shouldn't take for granted how peaceful and prosperous the world has been post-WW2, and that doesn't mean we can't criticize American foreign policy when it missteps(like in Iraq).

this is exactly wrong. soldiers have been proven to follow orders unquestioningly and lead to more use of force complaints and unarmed shootings, not less. 120 credit bachelor's level applicants have shown more philosophical thought while in uniform, and lead to less unarmed shootings. these officers also respect the thin blue line more than 120 credit officers as they have a brotherhood more ingrained into their personality. this is actually a reform movement inside the CJ system where many chiefs are bucking tradition and requiring 120 credits for applicants, the old school approach is to just grab the guy who will follow orders and keep their mouth shut.

im also not sure what escalation of force in war you're talking about, some of the horror stories ive heard from my buddy who did 2 tours in afghanistan...... one time a whole room of children was saved from a grenade just because of who the leader was that day, if it was the "normal" guy they'd have died. and these stories are endless.