[UnderseaLcpl]

Speaking of unrealistic idealism, I have a question about this article. At what point did it become America's responsibility as a nation-state to care about the fact that people the world over suffer and die in genocides or wars or famines or plagues or anything else for that matter? If it is our responsibility then why are so often bent over the barrel for interventionist policies that go awry or are motivated by the "wrong" reasons? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Why is it our moral obligation to make everyone happy? If it is our obligation, shouldn't we be able to go about it our own way since we somehow got ourselves into that position in the first place and would probably know a thing or two about it?

I see no reason why we are obligated to respond to anything except direct threats with a valid casus belli. Therefore, I fail to see how we can be held accountable for the actions of other nations, even in part.
I personally think that our foreign policy should consist of letting other nations hire us to provide military aid, peacekeeping, and economic aid. We're already whoring ourselves out to other nations' agendas, we might as well make a few bucks while we're at it. We can't pave the road to hell with good intentions if we have an obligation to a contract service. That way, guys like the author (and myself to some extent) can pick and choose our causes, guaranteeing help to all with as little favoritism as possible.

Failing that, I think we should let a coalition of concerned nations that doesn't include us tackle the problem for once and we'll see how they do. I'm tired of America taking a beating from interests abroad and at home for it's actions, inactions, and everything else as well. I think the policy should, one way or the other, be "put up or shut up".