Depends on what to which you’re specifically referring. I know a number of folks take issue with foreign aid spending, for instance, but it typically gives us a lot of bang for our buck, and is an inconsequential amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That said, we often attempt to direct the use of that foreign aid money towards specific things, and I don’t always agree with the chosen direction.
When it comes to, more generally, military action or aid, it becomes a little more complicated. Military action has its own set of conundrums and consequences, and in many cases, there’s no clear cut cost-benefit analysis because of all the relative unknowns. So for me, the biggest thing is having a clear reason for taking action, be it coming to the aid of an ally, oppressed people, or protecting important economic or political interests.
I took your comment about forcing our ways of government on people as taking issue with attempting to establish liberal states in areas like the Misdle East. I also take issue with that, but possibly for different reasons. The idea of establishing democratic regimes in an effort to reduce the likelihood of interstate war, establishing new allies in strategic regions, and ultimately directing the growth of nascent regimes in a way that’s favorable to the U.S. is logically sound, but unfortunately doesn’t work well in practice in regions unaccustomed to liberalism as we know it. Succeeding in this effort would require decades long commitment and a level of political will and capital yet unseen. That said, there is a push in academic circles studying regime change, development, and conflict to move away from this model, and hopefully it begins to make its way up the chain.
I think the ultimate answer I can give though is that while there are a myriad of reasons to take issue with the way in which the U.S. gets involved in foreign affairs and attempts to solve problems, there’s also no reason for it to distract from or somehow impede our ability to address domestic issues. There’s pretty good amount of separation within both the government as a whole (division of powers between federal branches and among the states) as well as the executive bureaucracy. Given that there are resources within, primarily, the executive branch dedicated to these foreign endeavors, the rest of the government is left to handle a domestic agenda separate from foreign policy.
TL;DR: There’s really no reason why solving problems at home and abroad can’t happen simultaneously, although the way the U.S. goes about involving itself in foreign affairs is complex and problematic. But in most cases, it’s a necessary component of maintaining the position of a global superpower.
