What is Americans' opinion on their military being so omnipresent in the world?

Let's restructure the question, because it's almost always a leading one - What would your thoughts be if America removed that presence? American bases are a huge reason nations haven't gone to true blows yet. Ex - Russian troops in Syria being driven back from a post because American troops were there, so Russia couldn't send in their big guns or admit that their troops were actually present at risk of direct conflict with the United States. That type of situation in both hot and cold areas is a huge deterrent of conflict. Think of it this way, your friends have beef with another group of people, you want to jump them, but one of the guys with them is prime Mike Tyson's buddy. You can go beat them up, yes, but... Then prime Mike Tyson is after you. Nobody wants that. So you don't go in. . . Something else here has to be established. America doesn't just protect the "American Way of Life", it protects most European and "western" "ways of life". American ships and aircraft protect shipping lanes used by almost everyone, American intervention to keep oil trade open benefits most of the West as well, etc. America is often billed as selfish as hell, and the intent certainly is, but for most of the same people that complain, they have been seeing direct benefits of American intervention for the better part of a century now. And even better - you can wipe your hands of it and pretend otherwise! When America goes (figuratively) nuclear to keep trade cheap and oil flowing, it does not only benefit America. It's also worth noting, a lot of intervention happens because people are calling for it. . . As others pointed out, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ex: Kuwaiti tankers are being attacked by Iran, driving up oil prices everywhere because all the tankers are being blown up and Iran is trying to strangle Iraq's exports. America intervened by setting up escorts. One of said escorts was nearly sunk by Iranian mines. America then took the initiative to strike Iran's navy, and the forces that would allow for more aggressive action on the sea. This is intervention to help an ally for our own interests, yes? BUT The alternative is letting civilian tankers and cargo ships repeatedly be sunk while the waters are mined, civilians die, and oil prices rise around the western world while Iraq slowly goes bankrupt. Is this "good" or "bad"? It entirely depends on what narrative you want to push. And that's one of a billion examples. . . Also, again, American presence is often requested, or expected. I was actually in Sweden when [a huge American flat top assault ship pulled into the harbor.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/04/us/politics/uss-kearsarge-stockholm.html) First off, my family had no idea that was a thing, and it was surreal as hell to be outside a palace and then going to an art museum only to look out a window and what looks like an AIRCRAFT CARRIER is just chilling there. But it was in response to Sweden, who was actively working to join nato, wanting a joint training exercise. Specifically here to ally closer and make a show to Putin to keep him from getting funny ideas, as this was while Ukraine was kicking into high gear. America's power isn't just hard military power, it's soft powers to check everything. You can grumble, but almost every nation on earth that is friendly or even just tolerant of the US takes advantage of this. "Don't screw with me, or you screw with America!!!" So while people complain, if that just stopped being a thing? Huge parts of the world would suddenly need to drastically increase military spending, or worry about their borders. . . Another quick example close to my heart is Taiwan. I visited when I was younger, learning Mandarin, and it's a beautiful country with very kind people. I truly hope that our administration will recognize them eventually, and commit to helping them before it's too late. Taiwan is ready and willing to blow up their own factories just to spite China if they invade - and they are critical for making microchips worldwide. If China were to invade or keep getting closer, would American presence there be to protect the microchips, rather than the people? To an extent, almost certainly. But because that's part of the benefit, does that make keeping Taiwan free BAD? I don't know, man. . . Final bit - I'm sorry for rambling, I have a lot of thoughts - and don't get me wrong, I am not big into foreign intervention. I just think that the narrative from citizens of other countries is both hypocritical and born of ignorance. . Last thought to have, is the benefit other countries have gained from America taking the "world police" role, and the money they have saved - indirect benefit. It's easy to giggle about American military spending. But some people never consider that it's a huge reason that their own governments can spend less. People aren't really worried about, say, the UK having to hold off invasion alone - because America is there. Same for most of Europe and around the globe. The assumption is, America will come in with the trillions and deal with the big fish. America contributed like 30% of the finances to the UN in 20/21, as an example. That's money other countries saved. All our R&D money also is money saved from customer nations - like how F-35s are being bought by the UK, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Poland and Singapore - and soon, Germany. Taiwan wants them, but it's unclear if they will be able to commit to an order, and if America and Trump will allow that order to be filled. Apparently, more than 100 nations rely on Lockheed Martin alone. And who is the one funding those projects? The USA. $323 billion+ on development that will continue into the future - that other countries didn't have to pay. As well as just r&d, many European countries have smaller standing armies, out of date or small armored divisions and air forces / navies, etc. to the point where it's an issue for them to send things to Ukraine because the production isn't even set up in Europe and they don't have much for themselves in some cases. (Also notable that our military spending compared to our GDP is 1% or less more than most other Western nations, and lower than countries like Poland, half of Russia, etc.) So the benefits have been around... More or less since WWII, keeping everyone else's spending down and being a deterrent. . As others have said, at the end of the day, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't in terms of military influence. If we leave, it's the wrong choice. If we intervene, it's the wrong choice. If we fence sit, it's the wrong choice. You can see that in real time with Ukraine and Israel. It's a hard thing to say is "good" or "bad" - it's both and neither. We have done messed up stuff, as has everyone. But we also massively benefit our allies in a multitude of ways that is rarely truly acknowledged in step with criticism. Just wish people would know more context when they complain, I guess. Sorry for the essay, let me know which of my takes are way off.