What would be the point of debating a position that an OP has actually proven?
Why do so many people on the right and the left turn into John Galt when it comes to foreign policy?
The decision to intervene is on 2 axis: “what should we do” and “will it work”.
So “ideologically we should intervene, but in this case it won’t work” and “ideologically we shouldn’t intervene” end up in the same “no” camp.
If it was clear our foreign aid (either military or financial) would really make a lasting difference, I believe there would be fewer ‘John Galts’.
I think what the OP is seeing is pragmatism rather than xenophobia.
Its one thing to give people a helping hand (a la foreign aid or something like that), its another thing to get in the middle of someone else’s fight and possibly end up backing the wrong horse.