Should the U.S. be Protecting Capitalism? (Understanding the Responsibility of Our Own Nation)

I received this statement, which asked for a response:

Despite the costs & conflicts that came with it, the U.S. adoption of a policy of armed containment of communism during the Cold War was a morally correct acceptance of international responsibility.

"Morally correct"...hmm... an interesting way of accessing international responsibility. Should the U.S. be Protecting Capitalism? I'm going to go on a limb and partially disagree with this statement, for three reasons. Armed containment of Communism (the Truman Doctrine) lacked prudence, unduly increased expenses, and finally, I believe it could be morally incorrect.

But first, I do believe there are moral situations in which the U.S. should act. When moral gross injustice occurs, unarguable mass crimes against humanity, such as Germany in WW2 or potentially Stalin in the Cold War. When many innocents are being killed, then countries should act.

First, I believed the actions flowing from The Truman Plan lacked Prudence, particularly in the Vietnam war. After instigating with foolish assaults, their own self-proclaimed policies forced them to try to save face. How many times would they have been able to withdraw from "wars" and limit the damage without having to worry about losing the Russian's respect if they had not put up such a stand? We will never know.

Second, The Truman Plan helped unduly increase expenses. The Korean & Vietnam wars combined for a total of 140 billion dollars, or around 1.3 trillion of today's dollars. And most historians will admit that the wars we fought failed miserably. However, to be fair, it did help curb the spread of Communism. Socialistic states could have expanded the globe were it not for containment. However...

Third, The Truman Plan may have been morally incorrect. Is it wrong for the government to own working machinery? Because that's communism's basic principle. While it failed economically, led to disastrous tyrants, and increased general dissatisfaction, communism was not worthy to forcibly contain, with arms. To expend human life to stop. To be the aggressor. Is that a correct moral decision to use arms against that? No.

That being said, socialistic or communistic corruption is worthy of outcry. Russia treated their citizens horrendously, arguably treating human life poorer than the Nazis. Most every communist leader in the 20th century appeared to act as an emperor and a tyrant. Is that worth fighting against, a moral issue for a nation? I would say it could be, but it should only be done internationally, not with individual aggression. If most (if not all) countries around the world agree that a nation has gone too far, then international action can be taken. But individual countries aren't responsible for overthrowing or fighting against other governments.

Why would it be different than any other sphere of government? It's not the job of one person to serve out their own justice. So why would it be okay on an international scale?

Finally, I have to add, we have to "take the log out of our own eye." (Matthew 7:5). America is far from perfect as a nation. What about the abortion of 62 million babies, or our treatment of Japanese Americans during WW2, or Native or African Americans? What about the 94% tax rate we imposed on the rich in 1944? So, while we should participate in national affairs, we must be careful of hypocrisy. America is a nation; founded by fallen men, ruled by fallen men, and likely fall because of corrupt men. We shouldn't, with good conscience, be able to "cast the first stone" on another one. (John 8)