> Mainly because the U.S. without a rival is a frightening thing,
Is it any more frightening than the US with a rival? No matter whether or not you think the military adventurism of the US over the past decade has been a net good or bad, the Vietnam war (which was fought because the US had a strong rival) was worse (in terms of direct human costs) by many orders of magnitude than all future interventions combined.
> but also because many of the citizens of the FSU took a big material hit
> with its collapse.
They did, but it remains to be seen whether or not that hit will be outweighed by future benefits, right?
-- Luke
> Doug