If you actually want to discuss your points, I don't mind presenting an opposing viewpoint. Why do you think it would take craftiness or guile, if a president of the US is commander-in-chief, of the worlds last remaining superpower? Coming from that position of strength, wouldn't you consider it a more ethical and moral position, to adopt a more understanding position? In other words, what could we do better with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, that we cannot do with market-friendliness?

We already have a UN. Most of our diplomacy could be handled via that organization and it would allow us to focus on improving our own situation in the US. Why would a president of the US need to micro-manage any functioning anarchy or third world dictatorship, when we haven't solved the issue of poverty in our own first world economy?

Why would any other foreign state want to wage war or threaten another state that has exorbitantly expensive superpower to waste, instead of engaging in better forms of commerce that can improve the standard of living of all market participants?