As a 23 year old Millennial, I can attest to all of those criteria having a heavy affect on my world view; however, it need be clarified that there are different types of interventions. The first type is military interventions, which my generation - though I'm assuming we're not the only ones - are exhausted by. To us, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are what the world judges us on. The "once mighty and all powerful" America has overreached, and whatever the motivations, we're now mired in wholly unpopular engagements both domestically and abroad. Even the dimmest critical thinker can see how this would lead to Millennials believing that this makes us unpopular.

The second type is diplomacy (into which I place aid.) This is less and less the focus of what we Millennials hear about. This is the type of "intervention" and global presence that the United States should promote. It would be a sad day indeed if my generation, exhausted and frustrated by the violence of the 00's decided that it is in our best interest to hermit up and withdraw from the world. I've been around the world in this past year, and the United States is still the preeminent power and "ideal," what a shame it would be to turn our backs on the rest of the world.

particularly comments on a webzine/blog like Foreign Policy. If you were looking to gauge popular sentiment using comments, I'd suggest looking at the comments on venues appealing to a larger crowd.

I may be wrong, but I'd imagine most Foreign Policy 20-something readers are predominately male and of that young, earnest type looking to make a career in government work or as policy-focused academics, and in ngo's. I'm not trying to dismiss this demographic. These young people are the group from which our future political and military leaders, policy makers, and senior bureaucrats will be drawn, so their opinions are important.

But the relationship between the US government and Americans has changed. Older people trust the government more. I'd suggest that this simply isn't a case of the conventionalism that comes with age. It seems to be a bipartisan, historically specific set of attitudes.

I'd suggest the weakening political capital of the US government will limit the ability of future leaders to act internationally, even if they were so inclined. Internationalism requires more political capital than non-interventionism.

Some similarities in generational situations I'd like to point out. First of all, Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have been a similar experience for the young generation that Vietnam was for the young generation of that time. Granted, there's no draft now, but even with a volunteer force, many of us still know people who have fought and died, even if we're not forced to do the same. Generation X has no experience like this, the conflicts of their early adulthood went quite easily and well (Grenada, Gulf War 1, etc).

Secondly, economic crisis. One might also point out the stagflation and oil crisis of the later 1970s scarred the youth/young adults of that era just as the Great Recession is scarring my generation (I'm 25 years old, by the way). Again, Gen-X has no similar experience, the worst crisis of that generations' formative years being the S&L crisis or the Dot Com Bubble, neither of which compares to the other two I've mentioned.

All in all, I'd expect our Mellinnials to act on foreign policy very similarly to the Baby Boomers, relatively caution in foreign military intervention, but maintaining U.S. leadership in other fashions.

I'll thank you not to mention my generation in connection Bieber. Ever. He is another passing fad that will probably last three to five years before becoming completely irrelevant and good riddance.

No!! Really!! It has nothing to do with that! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to lock myself into a dark room and watch Reality Bites on an endless loop for the next 24 hours.

Oh, you poor Gen-Xers. The world always seems to be leaving you behind, and you grew up in a such a cynical era.

As for Bieber, he's mostly popular with the tail end of the Millennial generation - the kids who were born in the late '90s. I almost question whether they should count as Millennials at all, since they never really knew the 1990s.

I'd add (20 here) that the next decade will be rather pivotal in determining where our opinions lie by the time we begin reaching any sort of significant/influential public office, seeing as how the game changers seem to be coming at a daily rate (I dare say the Cold War acted like a fridge on change for the duration of their formative years).

I think the most refreshing development will be our pragmatism and freedom from Cold War paranoia. I've yet to hear a good reason for why we subsidize both Japan and Germany's military spending. Are we worried about another invasion of the Ardennes?

I resent the term 'Bieberhead", singers like him will only have a shelf life of 3 or so years. I think the most worrying thing about the future is how ignorant my peers seem to be about world affairs. Heck, most of the people in even Model UN can't even name say, more than one foreign prime minister or the capitol of Afghanistan.They simply form opinions on issues through what the talking heads on tv say and assume them to be absolute fact. I'll just assume our public's foreign policy "stance" will reflect whatever popular media hysterics are raging at the moment.

Also, I think our interventionist stance will depend on who we're facing. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan have developed into costly and eternal headaches, but look at how aggressive China acts when we play nice with them.

I am also worried about the stupidity of my generation (19 yrs old here) when it comes to issues pertaining to foreign policy and global issues. The problem with people my age, in my opinion, is all that has happened in their childhood has made them not interested in getting involved in anything outside where they are partying on Friday night, let alone outside of the country. I see the emergence of isolationism as well but I don't believe that is the correct route.

On a side note, the fact that people like Justin Bieber and god forbid the idiots from jersey shore, show that American pop culture has finally reached the danger zone. When people would rather be like "The Situation" or "Snookie" instead of making a difference in the world, you know we are in trouble.

I think the greatest shift that will happen to spring from our generation will be how we handle the relative decline in American power. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that there is a limit to what our military might can do. Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has put considerable stress on our armed forces and will continue to do so for years to come. The cost in treasury of waging these wars has also been felt, our federal debt has become a real worry that people are finally starting to hear/discuss. The financial crisis that we have just weathered has also given our competitors a chance to really catch up with us and has brought a whole slew of issues to the table that used to be a given (debt, world's default currency, american financial stability etc).

In short our generation will have to deal with growing and new global issues with arguably less than the generation before us.

We'll have to deal with emerging and re-emerging powers all over the globe. China, India, Brazil and Russia are all starting to challenge the US in what were traditionally areas of American influence/supremacy, be they geographically, militarily or intellectually. We've seen a more assertive Chinese military in Asia, Russia has just announced a multi-billion renovation plan for its military and we'll have to deal with these future problems in a world where the dollar's supremacy as the defacto world currency is challenged and quite possibly where we can no longer borrow as deeply as we have in the past. In addition to probably not having the appetite, means or will to fund costly military endeavors.

Personally I feel that going forward we will be much more cautious about actually deploying our military in conflicts. And that if we do it will be on a much smaller scale and will have a much more limited scope of objectives (i.e no more nation building). If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught me anything its that we can't rattle the sabre if the sabre is drawn and stuck in the gut of an enemy already. Much better to keep our military out of these kinds of entangling engagements and free to be deployed as deterrent. Imagine a world where we could've responded to recent Chinese provocations by surging military assets to our holdings in the Pacific instead of to Afghanistan or Iraq.

As much as it would amuse to me see what happens if we really do become isolationist I feel the consequences of completely muting ourselves on the world stage would only result in a world much more hostile to the US.

I'm curious about the extent to which Millennials have accepted the professionalization of national security. Eg., Joe and Jane Blogs have no expectation that they might have to fight in the nation's wars because they regard military service as a profession which can be easily avoided. Isolationism assumes a level of engagement in foreign policy which I suspect is going out of fashion. "Do what you have to so long as it doesn't involve me" gives a green light to all sorts of foreign adventurism.