WM,
I think I understand your position better now with the benefit of the explanation. We're not really that far apart as I do not see the U.S. military as a hammer and every foreign policy problem as a nail - just that some of our best friends have decided to stake their security on access to our toolbox and if that ever ends, they and their neighbors will reach for bigger and better hammers of their own. We're better off if they do not.
Great Britain erred in retreating further into "Splendid Isolation" and Imperial Preference when what they ought to have done was managed Germany's rise by locking her into a new Concert of Europe while Bismarck's influence remained. Great Britain of 1900 was not as relatively strong as the Great Britain of 1850 and once Europe settled into hostile blocs it was too late. Not all of this was the fault of British statesmen of course but it was in their long-term interest to have gone the extra mile.Additionally, as you point out, unlike the period leading up to WWI, the current world does not have a "multipolarity of great powers" competing for hegemony. 21st Century states are much more differentiated and seem to recognize that their economies are much more interconnected than they were in 1900
The U.S. does not face true multipolarity but the potential is there - China and India are rising, Europe is aging but it's latent strength is great.
Bookmarks