Here's someone else's view, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/11/harvard-professor-stephen-walt-urges-shift-in-u-s-foreign-policy/.
That's a depressing way to look at how the world works. I take issue with one question/response in particular:
GAZETTE: Is there a danger that if the U.S. shifts to a more restrained foreign policy, the vacuum would be filled by nations that do not support liberal values?
WALT: I think that idea is mistaken. The United States has not been able to dictate politics in many parts of the world, despite repeated and sometimes costly efforts. As powerful as we are, we don’t control the evolution of local politics and political alignments in most of the world. We have some influence, but we have not been able to dictate what happens in the Middle East, we can’t determine the fate of Afghanistan after 17 years of war, we have not been able to steer the politics of a country like Hungary or Poland, which are moving in an illiberal direction. If the world’s most powerful country cannot do that, then other countries are not going to be able to do that either. We can do a lot to shape the balance of power in critical areas, but our ability to mold the politics of these regions and tell other countries how to organize their societies is very limited.
Walt says no, but I think the answer is overwhelmingly "yes," and while I understand the "realpolitik" of it all, I'm not sure it's wise to totally give up on western idealism. He says that we, "...can’t determine the fate of Afghanistan after 17 years of war, we have not been able to steer the politics of a country like Hungary or Poland, which are moving in an illiberal direction.."
I would disagree that we couldn't determine the fate of Afghanistan - we simply didn't want to pay the price anymore. The fact remains, for example, that women in Afghanistan WERE in the workforce, WERE in universities, WERE in government. We DID steer the politics of Afghanistan in a positive direction, all thanks to what, at the end, really was a fairly small presence - smaller or on par with the people we have stationed in multiple other places around the globe. Imagine what could have happened if we'd allowed
this generation of Afghani people to rise into positions of leadership, instead of throwing them back under the boot of religious fundamentalism.
As for steering the politics of Poland or Hungary (or Turkey), yes, there are limits when dealing with a nominally democratic nation that simply votes "wrong." And while I'm not sure that the slide of those three nations toward a more authoritarian bent is indicative of a failure of American foreign policy, I AM sure that disengagement from the EU, and the corresponding removal of the financial and cultural influence we DO maintain there isn't going to stop the slide into "illiberalism." (Edit: That assumes, of course, that what we are "selling" is in fact positive, and not, instead, tacit support for radical nationalism.)