During WW1 the United States pursued a bigger global involvement in world affairs, the start of US involvement was the dispatch of 2 million troops into France. Depending on where one may stand on this strategy this power pursuit has paid off (Post WW2) in a usurpation of global dominance. There were large costs to be paid for it’s global pursuits; its entry into the second world war guaranteed the demise of the British as an Empire, and the US must have known this to be a consequence and took advantage of this. Not properly examined is the extent of massive losses of white European lives is something that Europe has never recovered from. Sure, the infrastructure and buildings have been replaced, but it’s identifying features as sovereign nations is all but lost. Most Western Europeans are not patriotic and frown on those who are. “What Americans had rejected before World War 2 was a steady global involvement with commitments to other nations and responsibilities for the general well-being of the world” (Kagan,Robert. “What our tired country still owes the world”). Although the American people rejected global involvement, liberal minded President Woodrow Wilson continued to set the United States in a global role position that led to confrontations with the Soviet Union. If Woodrow Wilson’s goal was to lose millions of lives in the pursuit of global dominance, then he succeeded. If his goal was to destroy the European identity with their ancestral homelands, yet again another success. One can look at the forced Muslim migration of persons perfectly incompatible with its cultures and mores. Notice the white european is not allowed to voice their discontent, lest they be labeled “racist” and some are even jailed in some cases. The United States should have isolated themselves from the problems around the world and left the fate of europeans to europeans, provided there was no direct threat to its homelands; however there was a threat, and this threat was not Germany. The threat of the Soviet Union and it hopes of global communism was the real threat, but Stalin didn’t have the military power to cross the globe and strike the homeland of the United States Of America in the 30’s or the 40’s. But if the Soviets goal was to conquer Europe, as Hitler suspected, a united Britain/American and German alliance in Europe could have thwarted the communist gulags (and Maoist) subsequent murder of approximately 200 million souls. It is safe to say the US took the wrong side and the global ideas formed by Roosevelt were misguided and discounted the “blood and soil” that the ancestors of europe fought for. The US was led into a war under false pretenses and the propagandized meme that Hitler wanted to conquer the world (no such evidence supports this claim). The alliance of Roosevelt and the drunkard Winston Churchill refused peace offerings by the Third Reich time and again, and made the wicked decision to make an alliance with the Soviet Union and do the bidding of the same international bankers that neoconservatives are currently beholden to. It must be said that Mr. Kagan would have no reason to support a non-interventionist US. Rarely does a member of the Jewish-led neoconservative advocate this position. Neoconservatives use terms such as “isolationist” in the prerogative sense to isolate competitive interests, much in the same as “anti-semite” is applied to those who question the underpinning goals of semitic peoples. It is not nihilistic to say the U.S can both provide the role of an economic hegemon and superpower but, it need not protect the borders of other nations while allowing its borders to be left unchecked and its citizens replaced. “Instead of essentially leaning back, waiting for threats to emerge, responding and then pulling back again, the new strategy required a constant and pervasive forward involvement in the affairs of the world” (Kagan,Robert. “What our tired country still owes the world”). The American citizen now, as in early 1900’s and 1930’s, has expected the a foreign policy aimed at its national interests, but has received very little in terms of a non-intervention policy. “The new economic strategy aimed to prevent economic crises before they resulted in revolution or despotism (strike first- George W Bush). “The new military strategy aimed to discourage would-be aggressors before they became aggressors” (Kagan, Robert. “What our tired country still owes the world”). How has this approach benefited the United States in the long term financially? The United States cannot continue the role of policeman in world affairs; the result of the United States playing policeman in europe led to billions of dollars to reconstruct Germany. It has led to necessary wars between peoples who share common interests and ancestors; it my opinion that any war between white europeans is a civil war. We the people should protect our homeland first, provide conditions of prosperity, and most importantly refrain from opening its national treasure chest to fund wars that can be avoided. Mr Kagan mentions that “Britain failed to prevent the rise of German hegemony twice in the twentieth century” (Kagan,Robert. “What our tired country still owes the world”), but is it not a historical fact that Hitler sought peace terms and attempted to avoid war? Yet somehow, the same usual suspects forced war where it should have been avoided. Should the United States have paid with treasure and blood for Britain’s thirst for war? Should the United States Did Germany present a direct threat to the physically threatened the United States NO.