When faced with a choice between engaging in Asia or Europe, the U.S. should maintain its security involvement in Asia. The region of Asia, namely China, may in fact pose as a threat to the U.S.’ status as a hegemonic world power. Despite the fact that the U.S. continues to hold on to its past reputation as an indisputable superpower, the U.S., as a nation struggling to maintain its image as leader of the world, would do well to ensure other “threatening” nations do not surpass them in energy security, military, or nuclear superiority. Both from a Neo-isolationist perspective as well as from a Selective Engagement perspective, the notion that these supposedly threatening nations are aiming to attain an image like the one the U.S. has of itself is not a fact but rather a domestically political concept the U.S promotes in order to justify its interventionist and at times aggressive behavior abroad. Instead, the U.S. engages in the international arena as a form of pre-emptive self-defense—a lesson learned from WWII. As such, because of the democratic peace theory and the race to acquire energy, Asia is a more important arena for the U.S to focus on.
From a Neo-isolationist perspective, the U.S.’ engagement abroad makes it susceptible to entries into regional conflicts, and may cost it both financially and in lost lives. Thus, engagement in a region unlikely to breed conflict—supposedly Europe—would be the best strategy for the U.S..
However, while it is true that Europe has been proactively encouraging peaceful relations and have taken an increasingly anti-war since the creation of the EU, disengaging in Asia can be more costly than engagement. Even with the formation of ASEAN, Asia has never been a peaceful region. The existence of the Taiwan Strait and North Korea crises as contemporary flash points is indicative of this. Yet, it is this precise instability that