The question of whether or not the US should be an interventionist country is a complex and contentious issue, with arguments on both sides. Some argue that the US has a responsibility to intervene in other countries to promote democracy, human rights, and global stability. Others argue that interventionism is costly, undermines national sovereignty, and can lead to unintended consequences.
One argument against US interventionism is that it can lead to the erosion of national sovereignty and the imposition of American values on other countries. Some argue that the US should respect the sovereignty of other nations and allow them to determine their own political and economic systems, rather than intervening to impose American-style democracy or capitalism.
Another argument against interventionism is that it can be costly, both in terms of lives lost and financial resources expended. US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have cost trillions of dollars and resulted in thousands of American and foreign lives lost. Some argue that the US should focus on domestic priorities, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, rather than intervening in other countries.
Finally, some argue that interventionism can have unintended consequences, such as increased instability and the spread of extremist ideologies. US intervention in countries like Libya and Syria, for example, has been criticized for contributing to ongoing conflicts and humanitarian crises in those regions.
Overall, the question of whether or not the US should be an interventionist country is a complex one with no easy answers. However, it is important to consider the potential costs and unintended consequences of interventionism, as well as the importance of respecting national sovereignty and allowing other countries to determine their own political and economic systems.