>>Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power
That just demonstrates a lack of political knowledge on your behalf, but I'll give you a break on that, like you requested. Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others. Just like US succeeds in certain areas(freedom of speech) but fails completely at others(making sure everyone has access to healthcare and education). It's not as far fetched comparison as you'd imagine.
>>If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?
Hopefully someone who doesn't get us into random wars we have no interest in. Like, EU could finally go for the full unity, get a proper army and stand on its own without US interventionism.
Changing the status quo is a political action. The military largely isn't political, they are a tool of the politicians, a loaded gun that the politicians point and sometimes shoot. The focus on the military is simply incorrect.
> Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others
Very debatable, but your argument is simply invalid. Many also yearn for "the good old days of racial segregation", but that doesn't somehow imply racial segregation succeeded at some things that we ought to admire.
Interesting that you think the US military's operations over the last 100 years have been about protecting its citizens instead of protecting the financial interests of the 0.1% ruling class.
Hegemony is essentially a zero sum game. If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?