Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The U.S. just gets the brunt of the blame for these sorts of accidents because it bankrolls geopolitical stability for the rest of the world. "bankrolling geopolitical stability for the rest of the world" is a nice attempt to recast maintaining a global empire through military power as if it was a selfless, altruistic deed. But its not even remotely accurate .
I don't know if we can speak about their motives , but they certainly contribute to overall stability. Use your head for a second. The US government hands out millions of dollars in foreign aid to it's "enemies" - governments who are quite happy to parade around talking about standing up the US, and then holding out their hand for handouts from them. It's quite clear what they're doing - they're basically doling out…
"For the world" is speaking to motives. America isn't bankrolling "stability for the world", its bankrolling stability where it suits the interest of American decision-makers, and instability where stability doesn't those interests.
> The US is very interested in global stability
Except for those places where its interested in altering the status quo, in which cases it spends lavishly on doing that.
> you can argue that's also in their own interests as well
"Their own interests" -- that is, those of American decision-makers -- are the only factor, not an incidental "as well" factor, in the decision of where to bankroll stability and where to bankroll instability.