system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The consequences of the US being a global hegemon are a necessary evil and better than the alternative.

People can look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an example of American tyranny. 

It think it's the opposite. It's the unfortunate consequence of global security. 

The wars are about oil. But it's about control of the source, not usage. China and Russia are still major players in the global game. If they had unrestricted access a hot war would be more likely. This is due to the fact that petrol is primarily for army use. 

If you go back to imperialism up to WWII, the biggest lesson learned was that if you have multiple global actors on the same playing field; wars happen. I've read that the safest we've been was during the Cold War - when we had two global actors. After the fall of communism, the '90s were mellow as all hell. 

Sure we are developing greater economic ties; which prevent conflict, but we have a while to go. In the meantime, this has to be where we stay - as the World Police.
gpt
Have you heard of "imperial over-extension"? The position of "global hegemon" shifts from country to country because hegemonic powers become over-involved overseas and run their resources down until they are weakened and before they know it someone else has taken their place. This is such a historical routine that there has been almost no hegemonic global power that did not have this fate. So if you like the U.S to stay powerful you should not want it to be a hegemonic power. You should want it to save the money it spends on foreign engagements and spend it on science, technology, trade etc. The US can be a global benign influence by being a beacon of advancement.