I would say that invading the territory of other nations and annexing it counts as involving yourself in the affairs of other nations. Historically, the US didn't want to interfere in Europe, absolutely, but it stuck its fingers in pretty much every other pie, excluding sub-Saharan Africa.
I mean, how do you characterise sending warships to scare Japan into opening up for trade in 1868 as 'isolationism'?
Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests.
George Washington's farewell address addressed this:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Thomas Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Monroe:
"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
Seward:
"defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations'...[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."
You seem to be arguing that the US projects military power in it's own interests. That's undeniable, but claiming that as a counterpoint that we weren't isolationist in the 19th century is not what isolation means. For recent examples: invading Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not. Panama was because of the canal and trade routes. WWI and WWII ultimately was in our best interests but it wasn't obvious at the time, particularly early on, and the cost was immense. Right now, we are so intertwined in alliances that if just about any country goes to war outside of sub-saharan Africa, we are automatically at war.
Your definition of isolationism makes no sense. The alliances that France had with the UK and Russia at the start of WWI served France's own interests, for example, yet France wouldn't be painted as isolationist. Countries make alliances that serve their own interest - how often do you see countries making alliances for net loss?
And despite you quoting several people including terms like "forbearing at all times, and in every way ... intervention and interference", I have already furnished you with more than a few examples of the US actively intervening and interfering. The US not only meddled a heap in the Americas, but also outside it's own area (like the Philippines and Japan, already mentioned). Neither does 'non-intervention' square with things like backing Cuba in a war of independence against Spain. That's the living, breathing definition of 'intervention'.
You seem to be missing my point that the US was politically isolationist with respect to Europe, but it wasn't isolationist outside of Europe.
> Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not.
This is all total propaganda. Iraq was 100% in the US's interests (or perhaps better put, the incumbent government's interests), and the US fabricated a casus belli to invade, against the wishes of its allies, and with no quality intelligence. Syria is a leftover from the Iraq debacle; the US would lose considerable international reputation if it just shrugged and walked away from the consequences of the clusterfuck it caused in Iraq. There was no alliance requiring that the US invade unilaterally in the case of Iraq, and the consequences of that populist action are now tearing Europe apart. There is more to national interests than conquering territory and acts of military revenge.
If the US got itself involved in conflicts that weren't in its interests, then it'd be much more involved in sub-Saharan Africa. Or filling eastern Ukraine with gung-ho marines and reverting the annexation of Crimea. I don't expect any nation to act against its interests, but if people are going to persist with the myth that the US really is the 'world cop', then it's a corrupt cop who looks the other way when there's no kickback coming its way.
