In my opinion, the U.S has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict; as the world turns the United States is a moral compass. There are other countries that believe in fundamental human rights but the vast majority of these countries are isolationist and the United States is an open and transparent society. Our only failure is in the amount that we fail to act before it is to late for many,people.
Why would America, a completely independent super power, need to help other countries in need when there are so many other well established powers, especially in Europe? America is on its own. We were neutral in the beginning of BOTH World Wars because we knew that we had only one obligation, and that is to ourselves. The United States of America is an independent nation of people. Do people have a moral obligation to help people? Yes. Do countries have that same obligation to each other? Certainly not. We should not be the force that is always expected to do everything for everyone else, we have a country of our own. When we are in debt, it is typically for the wars we participate in to HELP OTHER COUNTRIES. Money lost for an outside cause that we are not and never have been required for.
There's a huge difference in being morally obligated to do something, and there being a moral outcome. Is it good for us to get internationally involved? Absolutely. Are we morally obligated to? No. The only moral obligation our government has is to the citizens. The government, as written in the Constitution is bound to protect the citizens, nowhere in the Constitution is the government bound to get internationally involved. Again, is it a good thing to do? Absolutely. Are we morally bound to it? No.
The United States does not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict. When the United States acts like a police force of the world, they are putting their people's lives at risk in a place where they are not necessarily needed in the first place. It is just foolish.