Nothing is for free so benevolence is out of the question.

Payment comes in many forms. When a dictator on the other side of the world needs a "democracy" shot, or a country needs some additional sanctions for national security, the fact that European countries offer support makes the difference between greed/aggression and a "righteousness".

A surgeon gets paid to cure my illness ... therefore he can't be kind or have good will toward me? How about a non-volunteer firefighter risking his life?

Benevolence is performing kind, charitable acts, from a desire to do good. It implies that you do not ask or expect payment in return. And it would intrinsically apply to people, not countries. A fireman might help you regardless of being paid or anything other than the desire to do good. But international diplomacy and politics leave no room for benevolence.

You're saying all the US leadership chain (the people with the authority so decide strategy) agreed to spend billions extra just as a charitable act for another continent. The only way I can take the best interpretation of this is to assume you're joking.

Benevolence does not imply anything about payment, but the interest in another's well-being.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Benevolence.htm...

> It isn't threatened because of its powerful military

Seriously? You'd expect an invasion from Canada, or Mexico?

I am not against a powerful military, but it seems the US has gone way beyond that and mostly projects its force around the world, with poor results to show for everyone including the US.

You’ll find the US already spends comparably per capita. They just get much less for the money.