Let me illustrate using Bandow's article: "In such a world the U.S. need not confront every threat, and especially need not do so militarily. Russia is determined to regain lost influence along its borders, not challenge the U.S. for global preeminence. China is building a military to deter the U.S. from attacking it, not to attack America."
Russia is determined to regain lost influence along its borders. Bandow ignores that as that influence is regained, there are new borders to gain or re-gain influence. The Roman Empire expanded due to threats on its borders. As the borders expanded, new threats appeared at the new borders.
Here's an example of the narcissism, which implies that America is the cause of everything and no one else has their own aims and actions. It's always in response to America. "North Korea is a problem for America primarily because the U.S. continues to defend its populous and prosperous ally to the south. Pull out America’s troops and Pyongyang’s ability to threaten America largely vanishes."
Ah, North Korea has sent missiles over Japan too and has built missiles that reach Alaska and the west coast.
"A nuclear Iran would face destruction by both Israel and the U.S. if it attempted to use any weapons that it created, and its leadership has demonstrated no taste for collective suicide."Ah, one nuclear missile wipes out half of Israel. Two or more missiles could wipe Israel off the map. And Iran's leadership compose Twelvers, who do believe that the Mahdi will return,when there is mass slaughter in the world. Ahmadinejad wants to bring this about.
Why I'm not libertarian on foreign policy.
What's wrong with that? A stronger Russia is a more effective balancer against China. The more stable the balance of power is in the Old World, the less pressure for American intervention on the other side of the world.