The data is in, and warfare is what we do. Ignoring all the other forms, like economic, and focusing only on "Military Interventions", it is what we do and really what we have always done to the tune of 400 such military escapades between 1776 and 2019

These are my cut-and-paste notes from the site noted, which I need to get off of my clipboard, read them and weep:

https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/NSBIKPXYGT4U3VRBTPMM/full

Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A New Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019

the US has undertaken almost 400 military interventions since the country’s founding in 1776. What is more, these interventions have only increased and intensified in recent years, with the US militarily intervening over 200 times after World War II and over 25% of all US military interventions occurring during the post-Cold War era.
...
Furthermore, some scholars contend that the US uses force abroad without a clear organizing principle, and thus its military missions have had disastrous long-term and unintended consequences (Arreguín-Toft 2001; Aslam 2010). Toft (2018) has labeled current patterns of US military engagement as kinetic diplomacy, diplomacy solely through armed force. Indeed, in the past years, “while US ambassadors are operating in one-third of the world’s countries, US special operators are active in three-fourths”. This raises important empirical questions that require comprehensive data on US military interventionism across history: has the contemporary US increasingly relied on force as a foreign policy “instrument? What do patterns of US military interventions look like across time and place? Do these patterns promote US national interests?
...
According to MIP, the US has undertaken 34% of its interventions against countries in Latin America and the Caribbean; 23% in East Asia and Pacific; 14% in the Middle East and North Africa; and only 13% in Europe and Central Asia
...
Moreover, while MIP shows that over nine percent of US interventions have occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa,
...
Consequently, MIP reveals that recent US interventions have increasingly targeted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Sub-Saharan Africa. In a short amount of time, these interventions now make up over one quarter of total US military interventions across history. This regional expansion of the usage of force also parallels the US’s rise to global hegemon after the end of the Cold War.
...
Interestingly, the post-9/11 era, running from 2001 to 2019, appears to be the third most active for US interventions of relatively higher hostility levels. In this era, threats of force are absent, while usages of force are overwhelmingly commonplace. Since 2000 alone, the US has engaged in 30 interventions at level 4 (usage of force) or 5 (war). The post-Cold War era has produced fewer great power conflicts and instances in which to defend vital US interests, yet US military interventions continue at high rates and higher hostilities. Thus, this militaristic pattern persists during a time of relative peace, one of arguably fewer direct threats to the US homeland and security

WARNING: there is also a chunk of afactual twaddle regarding motives, something never subject to proof at the best of times. In this case, it is alleged that more recently the US has been driven by humanitarian and human rights concerns. This is a known propaganda campaign tossed out in support of our acts, but generally not supported by any facts. It was asserted, for example, to be the reason for our Libya intervention, but it was later admitted by one of our allies that it was utter bullshit and that no such crisis existed or needed to be resolved. Kosovo was another clear fraud as to motive, and, generally, I think most of us can all agree that the US does not use military force for charitable purposes, but, invariably, ulterior ones.

be well and have a good one