Is America Addicted to War?

Addendum:

In the concept I have outlined above, natural disasters -- much like insurgencies and/or other types of state/societal difficulty -- are looked upon as unique openings, exceptional opportunities, which we intend to exploit to attempt to bring about state and societal change; specifically as to political and economic order.

This concept, I believe, helps explain -- not only the new emphasis on using military forces in natural disasters and/or other humanitarian crisis -- but also how and why stability and support operations, and counterinsurgency operations are now at the forefront of military doctrine and infused with nation-building (state and societal change) language and ideas.

BK Price et al:

Or (consistent with the concept I have provide above) is the more proper understanding that the United States sees itself -- not as the world's policeman or guardian (suggesting a goal of maintaining the status quo) -- but, rather, as the world's transformer: Suggesting that the goal of intervention/use of military force is achieve significant outlier state and societal change?

I think a more appropriate question would be "Is America Addicted to Taking Action?"

As much as Professor Walt focuses on US interveionism via military force, he fails to acknowledge that the US spends as much if not more time intervening in times of other crisis. Every natural disaster, earthquake, flood, etc. is an opportunity for the US to rush to the rescue.

And that's the point. The US as a generic whole views itself not simply as a the world's policeman but as the world's guardian. We don't just get involved in the wars, we get involved in any opportunity to "help" others out.

Granted our record is hardly even but in some cases, such as with Libya, our failures to step up previously drives us to step in when otherwise we might not.

Prof. Walt's aregument would be stronger if he could show that we are quicker to get involved militarily than we are to engage in humanitarian events. But I don't think that argument can be made.

And, accordingly, this objective (to bring about the state and societal transformations that we desire) is what United States strategy, foreign policy and our instruments of power (DoD, DoS, etc) have recently been -- and are still being -- tailor-made and designed to do.

Is the more proper understanding as following:

Post the Cold War, the United States has been wedded to the idea of (1) using the opportunity, the opening, presented by insurgency -- and/or other state/societal difficulty -- to (2) breach state sovereignty, for the specific purpose of (3) achieving our strategic objective, which is (4) to establish a new political and economic order (one more compatible with our own) within the various outlier/less-integrated countries and regions?

Thus, we are not addicted to war, per se, but we definitely are addicted to the idea of using intervention -- which may include the use of military force -- to bring about the state and societal transformations that we believe are necessary for the 21st Century security.