> because there's a global cop who's willing to use force to keep the peace Are you talking about UN? If not when was the last time the US took the initiative

> because there's a global cop who's willing to use force to keep the peace Are you talking about UN? If not when was the last time the US took the initiative of a peace-keeping mission? Arguably it would be more than 25 years ago, in the Balkans and even there, it can be argued that this was under the auspices of the UN. In the 70 years you mention, US has often been the lesser evil, but especially since USSR's fall, it is not clear at all that it is a force for good. Its last strong engagement, in Iraq, was a totally evil and misguided operation that made the world less stable. Its refusal to help in Syria before ISIS took hold there is another blow. The crass incompetence of the Bush administration on both Iran and North Korea, and the apathy of the Obama administration on NK, led to a less safe world. US' recent interventions are sources of instability and now US' policies seem to be guided from Moscow and align more often with the views of dictatorships than that of democracies. In such a context, wondering about the ethics of improving US army's capabilities makes a lot of sense.