Not an American, but the United States and its allies - and actually probably even most of its enemies - derive enormous economic value and
peace from its military control of the world, which it achieves by its navy controlling the world seas and general striking power of its armed forces [0]. The United States determines the "world order" by being the remaining world's superpower (China is only beginning to challenge the US, and mostly at a regional level).
Like it or not, the U.S. armed forces underpin the world's current economic system and its relative peace. The prosperity as a result of America's control is called Pax Americana [1].
Some might consider the U.S.' powers undesirable, but I'm not arguing in favor of the general desirability of Pax Americana here. I'm just saying: keep in mind that "keeping U.S. forces at home" and significant scaling back of the foundation of Pax Americana is not desirable from both an economic perspective (for nearly everyone) or military perspective (for probably everyone).
Don't get me wrong - Pax Americana will end at some point, but it's in the best interest for everyone that this will be a mostly gradual change. For all Americans or non-Americans, it's not desirable that the U.S. withdraws its global army for any reason, including this calamity [2].
-
[0]: Nukes aside, the United States army has the sheer striking force to obliterate any other armed force world wide. In a "U.S. versus the rest of the world combined" scenario, the U.S. would still have a good chance of winning.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
[2]: Not the point of my post, but I don't believe this would even be a reasonable calamity for the U.S. to withdraw its armed forces for at all - outside of a small percentage of reshuffling things. Not playing down the trouble we're in at all, but we should also be making an effort to make a relative return to normalcy well within this year / within a couple of months. This is what's already being done in China.