I may be mistaken but I thought the U.S. got rich in WW I by lending money to France, effectively transforming the US from a debtor country to a creditor one.

I would suggest you check that theory.  I've never heard of it, and I don't think it's correct.  America had many new technologies to develop and grow in the '20's.  Automobiles were coming off a better developed and continuing to evolve production lines.  Roads had to be built.  Steel had to be produced.  People were moving from the farms to the cities, as farming was getting some automation.  It's hard for me to understand logic that would say America got rich off of a few interest rate points on loans to the French.

I think history does show us that a number of European countries did benefit from their colonies, in the sense of bringing back goods to the mother country from the colonies.  I don't say that pejoratively, but just factually.

Get involved abroad and profit, see Iraq.

Surely you jest.  Just look at the billions being poured into Iraq for rebuilding and to support our military.  The idea of Iraq may have been ill conceived, but even those who conceived it never thought of it as a colony to bring money back from.  How could that have ever happened?

I certainly agree with you that Europe can't be blamed for Iraq.

But I think you underestimate the number of Americans who would prefer a much more isolationist view for America than our current policies.  Unfortunately I can't recall the poll, but in the last month I saw one with some discussion that showed 1/3 of liberals and 1/3 of conservatives preferred this--though for different reasons.  And this has been an American view for hundreds of years.  And I would think a large group in the middle would go along with this, if it was at all realistic in the sense of being able to renegotiate current commitments.  We're starting to pull troops out of Europe, Germany first, I believe.  I don't see why, with the end of the Cold War, we should have a military presence in Europe.  The Europeans don't need us there, and I don't think they really want us there.  So why be there?  Let's leave--not recklessly or urgently, but with some appropriate planning with the EU so things we are doing that are useful there, they can pick up those activities if they choose.

Please don't see me as defending this gentleman's article, either.  I'm just making these points above.