I don't buy that it's our "duty" to interfere elsewhere. It does so happen that we are the most aptly equipped entity to carry out such endeavors, but I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that we do so out of some love or concern for humanity. It's equally silly to propose that we not involve ourselves in any foreign conflicts whatsoever - even if we wanted to, we would eventually be torn out of non-intervention, and would look foolish for having tried to do so (see World War II). So while my opinion has and will never have any bearing whatsoever on what this massive, lumbering giant of a nation chooses to do to or for the rest of the world, I think the best outlook as far as this issue goes is to be honest and realistic about it. Sometimes there are circumstances under which some intervention is all but necessary, such as when basic human rights are being grossly violated. I don't think the installation of any certain type of government (i.e. communism, evil dictatorship, what have you) justifies our involvement, but if it's resulting in serious human strife or casualties, then some sort of action is okay in my book. At the same time, in a case such as Iraq where human rights were not being grossly violated (don't bite my head off - there were and are worse places to be than pre-war Iraq), I think we have to recognize and be truthful about the fact that we have very clear and identifiable ulterior motives. The problem is that our government tries to put a happy face on everything, which the rest of the world looks at and says, "Okay, humanitarianism is dandy, but you are there for other reasons, you lying American pigfuckers." So just like most people who offer commentary on foreign policy, I have no real solutions other than to suggest that we cut out the bullshit, and purport an accurate image of ourselves as an international political and military entity. Ultimately, we're out for ol' no. 1, and I think if we had just said that from the jump, we'd be in better shape.