Not to say that China isn't belligerent only that I think they're generally less corrosive to the world
PH, Peru and Argentina all have the same complaints on China regarding fishing. Their aggressive ghost fleets will show up to take everything and ram them out of their own waters. To say they are less aggressive is giving good will they haven't earned. Likely because they don't have the same power projection the west currently has.
that there are plenty of other countries who are interested in World stability and will pick up the mantle at the US leaves on the ground.
I think an issue with this statement is that it just assumes things will work out. I specifically brought up the csto as a non western example of an empire collapsing causing a war among two other parties that were in that sphere of influence as they say. I also brought up ancaps as another unserious group of wishful thinking. I don't have an answer but I am calling yours out as handwaving real concerns.
You’re acting as if there aren’t large will powers that aren’t chopping at the bit to take the place of United States to maintain World stability.
You’re acting as if the United States single handily keeps the world stable which is absolutely not true.
I am not and I addressed that when I said,
"Weather the mongols (or the USA) are a good empire is a separate matter. "
In your other comment you bring up how China is bullying The Philippines. Russia also treats central asian / caucasian countries the way the US treats central america. Is that good? No, and yet many might say that a strong Russia is a kind of stabilizing force. A stronger Russia is able to bluff that the CSTO is worth the paper its printed on and have deterred the Amermenian-Azzeri war that happened a few years ago.
Do I think the Russian Federation or current China with its imperial goals are forces for good? No, but that is a different question to "do they bring stabilizing effects". And I will point out again the question was more or less as to why people consider the US a stabilizing force; not if that is a good or moral thing.
A strong USA is a call for stability. Consider what they said about the mongols, "For fear of his yasa and punishment his followers were so well disciplined that during his reign no traveller, so long as he was near his army, had need of guard or patrol on any stretch of road ; and, as is said by way of hyperbole, a woman with a golden vessel on her head might walk alone without fear or dread."
Weather the mongols (or the USA) are a good empire is a separate matter. The US brings a lot of stability for small countries and keeps sea ways open for trade. It is not an act of charity the way some republicans frame it, but still. Simply saying for the US empire to fold those responsibilities begs the question, who or what will take its place?
These are not easy questions and leave a lot unsatisfied. They almost remind me of anarcho capitalists saying that with out states and leaving things to the free market everyone will hold hands and sing kumbaya.
There does seem to be a major policy shift happening. Still TACO principal can never be ruled out.