The USFG should pursue a foreign policy of Military Isolationism

To put it succinctly, engaging in military interventionism allows us to maintain the international hegemony of the United States, which is beneficial because it preserves global stability.== Why Global Stability Matters ==Firstly, there's an obvious humanitarian aspect to this. There are billions of people living outside the United States, and their lives matter. Deliberately abstaining from helping them when we are perfectly capable of doing so is a moral abomination. Leaving billions of people to suffer like that is diametrically opposed to American values.But let's say you're a sociopath and don't care about the suffering of other humans. Not a problem -- preserving global stability is also desirable from a nationalistic perspective. In today's globalized economy, the United States no longer exists inside an isolated bubble -- the livelihood of every American depends upon the stability of our trading partners. We rely on the China for manufactured goods, the Middle East for energy, Latin America for labor, India for telecommunications services, and Europe for everything in between. Almost every country in existence provides us with essential goods & services, which is why it's in our best interests to actively maintain global stability.== Hegemony preserves Global Stability ==From Pax Romana, to Pax Britannica, to Pax Americana, history has consistently taught us a valuable lesson in international relations -- the world is better off when it's in a state of unipolarity [1][2][3]. When a single country's military & economic power dominates that of every other country (and the power isn't being abused), everybody enjoys the benefits of international peace and economic prosperity. There are several reasons for this:(1) Interventions are generally beneficialObviously, hegemonic interventions bring individual armed conflicts to an end, thereby saving millions of lives and billions of dollars worldwide. This is exceedingly evident in the case of US hegemony -- the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, 1989 Panama intervention, and 1995 Bosnia intervention are all examples of major successes on the part of the US Military [4]. Each produced major humanitarian & economic benefits by preventing rogue actors from abusing their power. In particular, the Gulf War saved the US more than $240 billion in oil imports, and the Panama intervention opened up the Panama Canal, which was a massive boon to international trade around the globe [5][6].(2) US Hegemony deters war & promotes diplomacyWhen the hegemon consistently demonstrates its capacity (and willingness) to swiftly break up fights & punish rogue actors, that has a deterrence effect on the instigation of armed conflict. The importance of this cannot be overstated. There are countless conflicts of interest between countries around the world, yet the vast majority of them don't devolve into wars -- this is primarily because the United States and its allies enforce international standards of conduct, and encourage countries to instead resolve such conflicts peacefully. If we do what my opponent is proposing, that will no longer be the case. Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine represents a failure of the US to properly exercise its hegemony -- American isolationism would cause that sort of occurrence to become commonplace, which would destroy global stability. (3) US Hegemony promotes international tradeThe spread of US geopolitical influence, in conjunction with the absence of international conflict, tends to facilitate the development of mutually beneficial trade partnerships. Not only does this do wonders for alleviating poverty & economic inequality, but it also serves as a natural deterrent to war. This is because war-time disruptions of international trade incur massive opportunity costs -- one study from the Federal Reserve shows that those opportunity costs are on the same level as the actual military costs of waging war [7][8]. The takeaway from all this is that the unipolarity created by US hegemony is absolutely beneficial.On the other hand, whenever we witness multipolarity on the international stage, all hell breaks lose. We can look to literally the entirety of modern history as a case-study in this phenomenon -- aside from two periods of unipolarity (Pax Britannica in the 19th century, and Pax Americana after the 1980s), humanity was constantly plagued by destructive conflicts between competing global powers. The 16-17th century wars of religion, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic wars, the World Wars, and the US/USSR proxy wars were ALL the direct result of multipolarity.If the United States were to implement a policy of military isolationism today, the international stage would inevitably revert to multipolarity, as countries like Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia start competing for power. However, this would result in *exponentially* more devastation than previous periods of multipolarity, due to the availability of WMDs and the fact that modern warfare tactics tend to incur large numbers of civilian casualties. We simply cannot afford that.In conclusion, military isolationism prevents us from maintaining US hegemony, which would bring an end to Pax Americana, halt international economic development in its tracks, and generally decimate global stability. Everybody loses if the United States withdraws from the international stage. The resolution is resoundingly negated. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.pbs.org...5. http://www.theatlantic.com...6. http://www.hbs.edu...7. http://www.frbsf.org...8. https://www.wto.org...