@LovingHare It is true that America has probably the strongest military in the world and spends the most on it (I only say probably because there is a possibility China is underplaying its defense expenditure but its still almost certainly America). But, despite this, America has needed assistance from allies/individuals to achieve its goals. e.g.
- Defeat of ISIS in 2019 (they are still kicking around but at one point they controlled a rather large area). America was by far the main player, but they needed the Kurdish fighters for local knowledge etc. Also the Kurdish soldiers (men and women) were unbelievably brave. American soldiers who were there said this. The Kurds allegedly helped in the assassination of the ISIS leader of the time.
- Assassination of Bin Laden. Huge deal at the time. Involved highly trained US SEALs and incredibly careful planning. Also the assistance of a local Pakistani man who posed as a Polio doctor to get DNA samples.
- Afghanistan. Apart from the NATO allies, Americans also needed local interpreters to do their work. There were tensions - but they would not have been able to operate at all without them.
I choose those cases because they involve small "insignificant" players who without a doubt were much less powerful militarily than America but still needed. Unfortunately the allies/helpers in each of those examples were not exactly rewarded for their efforts. Look it up if you have time.
Each time someone breaks a promise/lets down an ally it makes other people less likely to partner with them next time. Its why the fall of Assad was seen as a strategic loss for Putin. Game theory.
America's military strategy relies on having bases around the world. It has world leading logistics but that relies on having bases in friendly countries. Its nuclear deterrence relies on having weapons stored in other countries. Its nuclear detection and nuclear defence systems rely on radar in other countries (in a limited exchange of nukes the theory is this could save 100,000s of American lives). Having US bases, nuclear weapons, radar on your soil makes those countries more at risk of attack should someone ever attack the US. And guarantees being caught up in a nuclear war if god forbid that ever happened. However, in exchange the US provides security guarantees. No-one would drop a bomb on an American weapons silo in a foreign country, or drop a nuclear bomb on an American ally so the theory goes because they would face retaliation. MAD makes everyone safe. But if people stop believing that America would actually respond to an attack on its allies, that security guarantee disappears. And therefore it becomes a bad idea to have an American base/weapons/radar on your soil.
That was very long but basically, it is not simply a case of the rest of the world "taking advantage" of America. America has wanted bases etc and assistance from other countries/people and has had to make promises in turn.