"since we're superior conventionally our adversaries will seek asymmetric/unconventional means to attack our interests,"

Bill,

We see and hear this line of logic all the time, right? But consider.

A 300 lb man is standing on your foot. You ask him politely to please move and he ignores you. You finally get to the point where you cannot tolerate this violation any longer, but you notice this 300 lb man is also armed. So you knee him in the groin and run like hell. So, did you knee him in the groin because he was armed, or because he was standing on your foot?? We obsess on tactics applied, when often we'd be better served by focusing more on purpose for action. Sure, the ideology community tells us to blame ideological differences, and not any action or policies on our part for such attacks.

But these attacks are interest based. Yes the US defines and defends interests, and invariably those interests overlap and either support of conflict with the interests of others. In an era where so much is evolving rapidly, those governments currently in power positions evolve the most slowly, and are dedicated to sustaining the stability and certainty of the status quo, even when they recognize such positions are artificial, unsustainable, and at odds with the evolving demands of the people they affect most.

The US does not have a problem with our ability to deal with threats of any sort. Our problem is that our policies provoke so many to take action against us. We have a right to secure our reasonable interests. But we have a reciprocal duty to ensure that we secure those interests in reasonable ways. Most of our ways are long out of date and grow increasingly "unreasonable."