You’re misunderstanding Cusack’s point, which is forgivable because it’s taken out of the rest of it’s context. In his original piece he was describing how fragile our society can be, and quickly it can devolve. He was warning about the risks of electing an unqualified demagogue who is stoking and playing on hatred of others. His point was, if anything, that it’s a luxury to demand a candidate you have to be “excited” about. As for the rest about wars, etc. Let’s not loose sight of the fact that the situation in the middle east was set up by the Bush administration. It’s not chaotic because Obama went off on some adventure. Whatever mistakes Clinton made in her tenure have to keep in mind the mess she was inheriting, plain and simple. This is not to mention there are many, many complicating dynamics that the average person isn’t going to be educated on, much less understand the nuances of. Of course, “perpetual wars with vague and muddied objectives” isn’t the best idea. But you also have a situation where the hornet’s nest is stirred, a few states are failed and it’s not as simple as just flipping a switch and turning off the chaos. And, again, it was Bush that stirred the hornets nest and burnt down the house, handing us the now stirred chaos. The kind of “thoughtfulness” Cusack is calling for us understanding that in that situation, there aren’t necessarily easy choices, and a bit more consideration that swallowing every fake news scandal might be in order.