The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

The full title of the source my opponent cited is "The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814". Given that the Russian Civil War is hence over a century beyond its time scope and light-years away from the books subject; which appears to be the "conquest of the Indian peoples east of the Mississippi" no-one with any sensibility will find that reliable. The Russian Civil War (p.286) by E. Mawdsley, The Russian Civil War 1918-22 (p.137) by D. Bullock and Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War (p.404) by D. Koenker all clearly note a casualty figure of 3 million, or above. Yet even [if] my opponent had his figures right (which he obviously and undeniably does not) and the Russian Civil War had indeed had (in my opponent"s words) "only" a million casualties; I would never, ever, would dare to term that a "small" war. In any case, this argument is not about the Russian Civil War; it"s about debunking a false argument by the instigator in which he claims that periods of "international stability" are good for national security, which is clearly not so and therefore completely undermines his own stance. My opponent therefore now twists and somewhat desperately tries to reshape his argument. Suddenly, having "international stability", he says, does not mean that there is an overall stability in the world, but that it refers to, and I quote: "countries being stable with other countries". He then once again proceeds to cite historical examples to build his case, while we"ve seen by now that my opponent"s grasp of these matters is debatable at best. The instigator again returns to his post-World War I argument (again) claiming that this was a period of international stability because, and I again quote: "not many countries were at war with other countries." Yet, we"ve already seen that the period following World War I was 1) .. one of political instability in Germany and France. 2) .. one of political instability and civil strife in eastern and central Europe, particularly Russia. 3) .. one of economic instability in the United Kingdom, which had enormous debts. In closing of the historical argument, I would like to quote the French field marshal Ferdinant Foch, who " after signing the Treaty of Versailles " remarked: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". History has proven him right, almost to the day, and this concludes the assertion that the world of the 1920s was one of international stability. Returning to my main points; 1)My opponent still claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in favor of the United States. 1a He has still not defined this ideal status quo and I cordially challenge him to try a second time. 1b My opponent defines "what is moral" as the difference between "right" and "wrong". Anyone with any affinity with the concept of morality will know that conveys the mind of a child. Morality is not a choice between "right or wrong". Moral choices are not black and white, they are astonishingly grey. He does he think this/his concept of morality is applicable in the real world of real international politics. 2a My opponent no does no longer claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator, contrary to his earlier stance. He now says (in an astonishing non-sequitur) that "this is the job of the UN and the UNSC" and that "we (=the United States) are simply mitigating conflict so that we can uphold our national security". In other, less clouded, words: Policing the world is the job of the UN but the US should intervene when it suits them. Meaning my original assertions was completely correct: my opponent does claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a sort of global policeman or mediator. 2b I again repeat my position that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens, and I repeat my question to my opponent which was that that I would very much like him to explain the exact nature of this "morality", that is, the moral philosophy behind his idea that the US should play the role of any form of international state police.