Umm...what? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
What I was trying to say is that while the US shouldn't be the world's policeman (as it spreads its forces too thin), it can't exactly retreat from global affairs altogether either as that would bring a whole different set of problems. There should be some sort of middle ground between being a war-hawk and an isolationist.
The problem with the current Pax americana is that it is expensive and in order for it to continue there has to be something in it for the american people. for the last 30 years the world has coasted on a free seucurity garentee for all of the oceanic traffic in the world. That is not sustainable the american people clearly do not want to do something that expensive in blood and treasure for free.
It has to be a reciptical relationship and for the most part that is not the case.
The solutions to this problem is either the americans go home and everything goes on fire or the americcan hedgemony is replaced by an actual american empire. Which no one wants least of all the american people but will probally happen anyways.